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
Claims 1-14 are presented in the application and are being examined in this application.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2017/0050536).
Priority
The priority date for this application is 12/13/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The claims of this application are not being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The independent claim contains the limitation, “determining the target gear combination on the basis of a comparison of a longitudinal force demand with maximum total driving forces and minimum total resistance forces of possible gear combinations of the at least two transmissions”, which represents a limitation that the human mind is not equipped to perform in a meaningful way and therefore is not practicably performable within the human mind and therefore does not represent an abstract idea. No other judicial exceptions apply to the independent claims and therefore the claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 via Step 2A Prong One of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test.
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.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin.
As per Claim 1:
Martin teaches the following limitations:
“a method for determining a target gear combination for a vehicle having at least two drive systems, wherein each drive system drives a vehicle axle and each of the two drive systems has at least one motor and at least one transmission, wherein at least one of the transmissions has at least two gears; wherein the method comprises the following step: determining the target gear combination on the basis of a comparison of a longitudinal force demand with maximum total driving forces and minimum total resistance forces of possible gear combinations of the at least two transmissions, wherein the maximum total driving forces are a sum of the maximum driving forces of the possible gear combinations, and the minimum total resistance forces are a sum of the minimum resistance forces of the possible gear combinations.”
Martin Figure 3 discloses an electric vehicle with different electric motors affixed to different axles. Paragraph [0020] teaches a target torque value for two separate electric motors being facilitated through a gear selection of said motors. The presence of gear selection teaches that at least two gearings are possible for the motors. Paragraph [0019] teaches determining torque values, and therefore gearings, based on longitudinal demands of the vehicle from the driver. The sum of the torques produced from the motors is compared to the requested torque insofar as the requested torque demand is met by setting the torque values of the motors. Paragraph [0021] teaches avoiding the resistive elements of gearing and therefore renders obvious the determination of total resistance forces of the gearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the method disclosed by Martin with the modification of gear ratios to achieve target torque ratios of electric motors for two axles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the method more effective by providing a means for operating an electric motor in a specific speed range whilst maintaining torque ratios.
With regards to Claim 2, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“if the longitudinal force demand is greater than or equal to zero, the target gear combination is determined by a comparison of the longitudinal force demand with the maximum total driving forces, and if the longitudinal force demand is not greater than or equal to zero, the target gear combination is determined by a comparison with the minimum total resistance forces.”
Martin Paragraph [0051] teaches decoupling the motor from the wheels to minimize drag torque based on a motor not being utilized (i.e. the longitudinal demand being less than or equal to zero). Paragraph [0020] teaches selecting gear combinations based on tractive force demand (i.e. when longitudinal demand is greater than zero).
With regards to Claim 3, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“if no maximum total driving force of the maximum total driving forces is greater than or equal to the longitudinal force demand, the gear combination which has the maximum total driving force is selected as the target gear combination; and wherein if no maximum total resistance force of the minimum total resistance forces is less than or equal to the longitudinal force demand, the gear combination which has the minimum total resistance force is selected as the target gear combination.”
Martin Paragraphs [0019]-[0022] teaches selecting the optimal configuration for electric motors driving axles. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that selecting the maximum torque available when the driver-requested torque is greater than the maximum torque available and selected the minimum torque resistance (which is zero in the case where the motor is disconnected) when the force demand is lesser would equate to the optimal configuration and would therefore be selected in the system taught by Martin.
With regards to Claim 4, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the target gear combination is determined in such a way that a gear combination is selected in which the gear is changed in a smallest possible number of the at least two transmissions, and wherein the target gear combination is determined in such a way that a gear is changed in at least one transmission of the at least two transmissions.”
Martin Paragraph [0021] teaches avoiding unnecessary changes of state which would equate to minimizing gear changes.
With regards to Claim 5, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 4 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein, if, in a plurality of gear combinations in which in each case the same smallest possible number of gears is changed, a gear combination which has the smallest maximum total driving force of the maximum total driving forces and the greatest minimum total resistance force of the minimum total resistance forces is selected.”
Martin Paragraph [0021] teaches avoiding unnecessary changes of state which would equate to minimizing gear changes. This would still be performed such that the configuration is optimized in accordance with the remainder of the reference.
With regards to Claim 6, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the longitudinal force demand is determined from a force reserve and a force input.”
Martin Paragraph [0053] teaches identifying a longitudinal force demand as a torque demand from the driver which results from a force input on an accelerator and a force reserve in the torque capacity of the electric motors of the vehicle.
With regards to Claim 7, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the force reserve is determined from an acceleration reserve and a vehicle mass.”
Martin Paragraph [0053] teaches identifying force demands based on motor capability. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that vehicle mass directly affect motor capability.
With regards to Claim 8, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the acceleration reserve is determined from a force utilization and an acceleration utilization.”
Martin Paragraph [0074] teaches identifying acceleration demands and including them in overall force demands.
With regards to Claim 9, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 8 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the acceleration reserve is determined from a characteristic map which has a value for each force utilization and acceleration utilization, wherein, if the force input is greater than or equal to zero, the value is multiplied by a maximum vehicle acceleration, and if the force input is not greater than or equal to zero, the value is multiplied by a maximum vehicle deceleration.”
Martin Figure 5 teaches a characteristic map for the utilization of electric motors based on force input.
With regards to Claim 10, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further teaches the following limitations:
“if the force input is greater than or equal to zero, the force utilization is determined from a ratio of the force input to a maximum total driving force of an actual gear combination of the at least two transmissions, and if the force input is not greater than or equal to zero, the force utilization is otherwise determined from a ratio of the force input to a maximum total resistance force of the actual gear combination of the at least two transmissions; and wherein, if the force input is greater than or equal to zero, the acceleration utilization is determined from a ratio of a vehicle acceleration to the maximum vehicle acceleration, and if the force input is not greater than or equal to zero, the acceleration utilization is determined from a ratio of a vehicle deceleration to the maximum vehicle deceleration.”
Martin Paragraph [0085] teaches dividing torque requirements onto different electric motors based on the motor capabilities and force input demand.
With regards to Claim 11, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the force input is limited.”
Martin Paragraph [0059] teaches identifying force demands with regards to the power limits of the components.
With regards to Claim 12, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the limited force input is determined from the minimum of the force input and a sum of a resistance acceleration and the maximum vehicle acceleration times the vehicle mass.”
Martin Paragraph [0059] teaches identifying force demands, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to calculate force input in this manner.
With regards to Claim 13, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform the method according to claim 1.”
Martin teaches all of the limitations of the method according to Claim 1 and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such a method could be stored on a computer-readable medium and one would be motivated to make this modification as it is standard practice in the field to utilize computers to execute calculations.
With regards to Claim 14, Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“A vehicle having at least two drive systems, wherein each drive system is provided for driving in each case one vehicle axle and each drive system comprises: an electric motor and at least one transmission with in each case at least two gears, wherein the electric motor is in operative connection with the transmission; and a controller which is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1.”
Martin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a method concerned with controlling electric motors of a vehicle could be executed on a vehicle with these features.
Related References
Kaneko (US 9,038,759)
Related to hybrid work vehicles.
Healy (US 2018/0093655)
Related to hybrid electric vehicles.
Jung (US 2017/0136871)
Related to wheel driving systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights