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 communication is in response to Application 19/275,722 filed on 07/21/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2025-0018759, filed on 02/13/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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) 1-2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 20250135959A1, in view of Niste et al., US 20130066499A1, hereinafter referred to as Jones and Niste, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a driving method for a vehicle in a motor failure (Propulsion system including a first electric motor configured to propel a vehicle in a drive mode in response to a drive current, a second electric motor operative to generate a back electromotive force voltage in a fault mode – See at least ¶5), the driving method comprising:
determining, by a vehicle controller, whether a failure has occurred in the second motor or in an inverter connected to the second motor (The vehicle controller monitors operational parameters, fault flags, diagnostic trouble codes, and inverter/motor status for the electric drive system – See at least ¶67, 76, 78 and 81);
executing, by the vehicle controller, at least one of a plurality of cooperative control operation schemes based on battery state information obtained from a battery management system (BMS) (The BMS monitors battery state of charge, temperature, and other battery parameters and following detection of a motor fault, battery voltage/charge information and battery current/voltage limits are used to determine torque, power, vehicle speed, and protective control operations – See at least ¶63, 76-80).
Jones fails to disclose the vehicle including first and second motors that are arranged in parallel with each other and based on a determination of the failure in the second motor or the inverter, switching, by the vehicle controller, to a limp-home mode in which the vehicle operates using an engine of the vehicle and the first motor that is directly connected to the engine.
However, Niste teaches:
the vehicle including first and second motors that are arranged in parallel with each other (A first electric motor/ISG drives a front axle and a second electric motor/ERAD drives a rear axle in a parallel hybrid configuration – See at least ¶27 and 43-44 and FIG. 2) and
based on a determination of the failure in the second motor or the inverter, switching, by the vehicle controller, to a limp-home mode in which the vehicle operates using an engine of the vehicle and the first motor that is directly connected to the engine (In response to a system failure in the main battery pack or power electronics unit disabling primary propulsion, the controller switches the vehicle to a limp-home mode where an additional battery used for back up purposes operates the directly connected ISG/first motor to start and run the interna combustion engine – See at least ¶30, 39, 42, 46 and 50).
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 Jones and include the feature of the vehicle including first and second motors that are arranged in parallel with each other and based on a determination of the failure in the second motor or the inverter, switching, by the vehicle controller, to a limp-home mode in which the vehicle operates using an engine of the vehicle and the first motor that is directly connected to the engine, as taught by Niste, in order to provide redundant mechanical propulsion and maintain auxiliary power generation via the directly connected starter/generator.
Regarding claim 2, Jones discloses wherein the battery state information comprises at least one of a state of charge (SOC) (The power converter can further include a battery management system (BMS) to monitor and manage the battery to ensure safe and efficient operation by tracking the state of charge, temperature, and other parameters of the battery – See at least ¶63), a state of health (SOH), a depth of discharging (DOD), or a state of function (SOF).
Regarding claim 15, Jones discloses a driving method of a vehicle in a motor failure (Propulsion system including a first electric motor configured to propel a vehicle in a drive mode in response to a drive current, a second electric motor operative to generate a back electromotive force voltage in a fault mode – See at least ¶5), the driving method comprising:
determining, by a vehicle controller, whether a failure has occurred in the first motor or in an inverter connected to the first motor (The exemplary method is first operative to monitor for at least one of a plurality of electric motors being in a motor fault state. This motor fault state can be determined in response to one or more diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) and fault flags. The motor fault can be detected at the power converter, motor controller, battery charger or the like and the DTCs and fault flags can be received via a controller area network (CAN) bus or other data bus. The motor fault state can be indicative of a faulty electric drive motor that is being rotated in response to tire friction with the road surface while one or more other drive motors are actively propelling the vehicle – See at least ¶76); and
executing, by the vehicle controller, at least one of a second-stage cooperative control operation scheme or a third-stage cooperative control operation scheme based on battery state information obtained from a battery management system (BMS) (The BMS monitors battery state of charge, temperature, and other battery parameters and following detection of a motor fault, battery voltage/charge information and battery current/voltage limits are used to determine torque, power, vehicle speed, and protective control operations – See at least ¶63, 76-80).
Jones fails to disclose the vehicle including first and second motors that are arranged in parallel with each other and based on determination of the failure in the first motor or the inverter, switching, by the vehicle controller, to a limp-home mode in which the vehicle operates using an engine of the vehicle and the second motor, wherein the second motor is connected to the engine and located farther from the engine than the first motor is.
However, Niste teaches:
the vehicle including first and second motors that are arranged in parallel with each other (A first electric motor/ISG drives a front axle and a second electric motor/ERAD drives a rear axle in a parallel hybrid configuration – See at least ¶27 and 43-44 and FIG. 2) and
based on determination of the failure in the first motor or the inverter, switching, by the vehicle controller, to a limp-home mode in which the vehicle operates using an engine of the vehicle and the second motor, wherein the second motor is connected to the engine and located farther from the engine than the first motor is (In response to a system failure in the main battery pack or power electronics unit disabling primary propulsion, the controller switches the vehicle to a limp-home mode where an additional battery used for back up purposes operates the directly connected ISG/first motor to start and run the interna combustion engine – See at least ¶30, 39, 42, 46 and 50).
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 Jones and include the feature of the vehicle including first and second motors that are arranged in parallel with each other and based on a determination of the failure in the second motor or the inverter, switching, by the vehicle controller, to a limp-home mode in which the vehicle operates using an engine of the vehicle and the first motor that is directly connected to the engine, as taught by Niste, in order to provide redundant mechanical propulsion and maintain auxiliary power generation via the directly connected starter/generator.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 20250135959A1, in view of Niste et al., US 20130066499A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Xiaoyun Zang, US 20210261003A1, hereinafter referred to as Jones, Niste and Zang, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jones and Niste fail to disclose wherein the failure in the second motor or the inverter comprises at least one of an over-temperature failure, a position sensor failure, or a temperature sensor failure.
However, Zang teaches wherein the failure in the second motor or the inverter comprises at least one of a position sensor failure (For example, when a vehicle experiences vibration or a fault such as insufficient motive power, a gain error or offset error might occur in the measurement value of the current sensor, or a gain error or offset error might occur in the measurement value of the position sensor – See at least ¶29).
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 Jones and Niste and include the feature of t wherein the failure in the second motor or the inverter comprises at least one of a position sensor failure, as taught by Zang, to provide a method for monitoring and identifying sensor faults in an electric drive system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 20250135959A1, in view of Niste et al., US 20130066499A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Moon et al., US 20210309205A1 and in view of Ju et al., US 20130249488A1, hereinafter referred to as Jones, Niste, Moon and Ju, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jones and Niste fail to disclose wherein the plurality of cooperative control operation schemes comprise a first-stage cooperative control operation scheme that comprises: charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor based on main relay state information indicating that a main relay of the vehicle is turned on; comparing a charge level included in the battery state information with a preset first threshold.
However, Moon teaches:
charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor based on main relay state information indicating that a main relay of the vehicle is turned on (The battery controller may be configured to determine an On/Off state (Main Relay On/Off) of a main relay of a battery, and operate the battery. The motor controller may be configured to determine the state of a driving motor, and receive a motor torque value of the vehicle controller to operate the driving motor – See at least ¶44. The main relay of the battery for motor control is reconnected and turned on while charging current is applied due to back electromotive force of the HSG – See at least ¶47 and 49);
comparing a charge level included in the battery state information with a preset first threshold (Accordingly, the following procedure to prevent the battery from being overcharged may be performed. The hybrid vehicle control apparatus may be configured to determine whether the battery is overcharged by determining whether the SoC of the battery is greater than a predetermined threshold value – See at least ¶60)
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 Jones and Niste and include the feature of charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor based on main relay state information indicating that a main relay of the vehicle is turned on; comparing a charge level included in the battery state information with a preset first threshold, as taught by Moon, to control a hybrid vehicle to a fail-safe strategy control technology when a hybrid vehicle malfunctions.
The combination of Jones, Niste and Moon fail to disclose based on the charge level being greater than the preset first threshold, executing, by the BMS, a battery charging limit process.
However, Ju teaches based on the charge level being greater than the preset first threshold, executing, by the BMS, a battery charging limit process (In addition, the BMS may set a charging limit to determine a power section to be used by the battery module. That is, the BMS receives charging power from the power generation module to charge the battery module as described above, and when the BMS senses that the SOC has reached a charging limit, the BMS may generate a control signal indicating to stop driving of the power generation module to end the charging – See at least ¶63. The charging limit and the discharging limit set by the BMS may be an SOC or another parameter for determining an SOC. Thus, in order to determine an SOC, the BMS may use an SOC determination method such as a voltage measuring method, a current integration method, a current integration, and a Calman filter application method – See at least ¶64. Also, as other parameters for determining an SOC, a charging limit and a discharging limit may be voltages. That is, the BMS may measure a voltage of the battery module by using any one of the above-described measuring units and may determine whether the battery module has reached the charging limit or the discharging limit according to the measured voltage – See at least ¶65).
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 Jones, Niste and Moon and include the feature of based on the charge level being greater than the preset first threshold, executing, by the BMS, a battery charging limit process, as taught by Ju, in order to terminate or restrict further charging after the battery reaches an upper permissible charge level.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 20250135959A1, in view of Niste et al., US 20130066499A1, in view of Moon et al., US 20210309205A1, in view of Ju et al., US 20130249488A1, as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Higuchi et al., US 20210213934A1 and in view of 20160103185A1, hereinafter referred to as Jones, Niste, Moon, Ju, Higuchi and Chang, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jones, Niste, Moon and Ju fail to disclose after executing the battery charging limit process, determining, by the vehicle controller, (i) whether a charging current is greater than a preset reference current and (ii) whether an increase of the charge level in the battery state information is greater than a preset increment value; and based on determining that the charging current is greater than the preset reference current and that the increase of the charge level is greater than the preset increment value, distributing, by the vehicle controller, power to the first motor and the engine according to a driver demand torque.
However, Higuchi teaches after executing the battery charging limit process, determining, by the vehicle controller, (i) whether a charging current is greater than a preset reference current and (ii) whether an increase of the charge level in the battery state information is greater than a preset increment value (At Step S30, the controller determines whether or not the amount of average charging current of the battery in a predetermined time exceeds a predetermined “power generation restriction threshold”. The “power generation restriction threshold” is a threshold set to prevent an amount of average charging electric power of the battery per predetermined time from exceeding the above-described Li precipitation protection threshold when in charge mode. Therefore, the power generation restriction threshold is set to a lower value than the Li precipitation protection threshold. Furthermore, the predetermined time here is applied with the same time as the above-described predetermined time used in comparison with the Li precipitation protection threshold – See at least ¶46)
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 Jones, Niste, Moon and Ju and include the feature of after executing the battery charging limit process, determining, by the vehicle controller, (i) whether a charging current is greater than a preset reference current and (ii) whether an increase of the charge level in the battery state information is greater than a preset increment value, as taught by Higuchi, to provide a technology to avoid the battery being charged to an amount equal to or larger than a predetermined amount while increasing an amount of battery charge according to a driver's demand to charge, by properly control charging/discharging of a battery.
The combination of Jones, Niste, Moon, Ju and Higuchi fail to disclose based on determining that the charging current is greater than the preset reference current and that the increase of the charge level is greater than the preset increment value, distributing, by the vehicle controller, power to the first motor and the engine according to a driver demand torque.
However, Chang teaches based on determining that the charging current is greater than the preset reference current and that the increase of the charge level is greater than the preset increment value, distributing, by the vehicle controller, power to the first motor and the engine according to a driver demand torque (In one aspect of the invention, a method is provided for monitoring battery cell state-of-charge (SOC) using open circuit voltage (OCV). A charging current is applied to the battery cell. A charging condition is detected in response to a predetermined charging current. A charging slope vector is compiled during the charging condition comprising a plurality of slope values over respective state-of-charge increments – See at least ¶7).
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 Jones, Niste, Moon, Ju and Higuchi and include the feature of based on determining that the charging current is greater than the preset reference current and that the increase of the charge level is greater than the preset increment value, distributing, by the vehicle controller, power to the first motor and the engine according to a driver demand torque, as taught by Chang, to provide a technology to avoid the battery being charged to an amount equal to or larger than a predetermined amount while increasing an amount of battery charge according to a driver's demand to charge, by properly control charging/discharging of a battery.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jones, Niste, Moon, Ju and Hihuchi fail to disclose providing (i) a first portion of the power to the first motor to operate the first motor with a maximum torque that is set to prevent overcharging of the battery and (ii) a second portion of the power to the engine to operate the engine with a supplemental torque to thereby provide a remainder of the driver demand torque.
However, Chang teaches providing (i) a first portion of the power to the first motor to operate the first motor with a maximum torque that is set to prevent overcharging of the battery and (ii) a second portion of the power to the engine to operate the engine with a supplemental torque to thereby provide a remainder of the driver demand torque (In one aspect of the invention, a method is provided for monitoring battery cell state-of-charge (SOC) using open circuit voltage (OCV). A charging current is applied to the battery cell. A charging condition is detected in response to a predetermined charging current. A charging slope vector is compiled during the charging condition comprising a plurality of slope values over respective state-of-charge increments – See at least ¶7).
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 Jones, Niste, Moon, Ju and Higuchi and include the feature of providing (i) a first portion of the power to the first motor to operate the first motor with a maximum torque that is set to prevent overcharging of the battery and (ii) a second portion of the power to the engine to operate the engine with a supplemental torque to thereby provide a remainder of the driver demand torque, as taught by Chang, to provide a technology to avoid the battery being charged to an amount equal to or larger than a predetermined amount while increasing an amount of battery charge according to a driver's demand to charge, by properly control charging/discharging of a battery.
Claim(s) 7-9, 12-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 20250135959A1, in view of Niste et al., US 20130066499A1, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, in view of Moon et al., US 20210309205A1, and further in view of Park et al., US 20170240160A1, hereinafter referred to as Jones, Niste, Moon and Park, respectively.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jones and Niste fail to disclose charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor; determining whether a first overcharging condition is satisfied based on the battery state information and main relay state information of a main relay of the vehicle.
However, Moon teaches charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor; determining whether a first overcharging condition is satisfied based on the battery state information and main relay state information of a main relay of the vehicle (Moon Fig. 5; HSG failure, Main relay ON and SOC-overcharge disclosure – See at least ¶36).
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 Jones and Niste and include the feature of charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor; determining whether a first overcharging condition is satisfied based on the battery state information and main relay state information of a main relay of the vehicle, as taught by Moon, to control a hybrid vehicle to a fail-safe strategy control technology when a hybrid vehicle malfunctions.
The combination of Jones, Niste and Moon fail to disclose based on determining that the first overcharging condition is satisfied, determining whether a second overcharging condition is satisfied based on motor state information indicating that the second motor is uncontrollable; and based on determining that the second overcharging condition is satisfied, performing, by the vehicle controller, at least one of a shift intervention control or a fuel cut control.
However, Park teaches based on determining that the first overcharging condition is satisfied, determining whether a second overcharging condition is satisfied based on motor state information indicating that the second motor is uncontrollable; and based on determining that the second overcharging condition is satisfied, performing, by the vehicle controller, at least one of a shift intervention control or a fuel cut control (Park, Figs. 4-6; operations S222, S232 and S242).
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 Jones, Niste and Moon and include the feature of based on determining that the first overcharging condition is satisfied, determining whether a second overcharging condition is satisfied based on motor state information indicating that the second motor is uncontrollable; and based on determining that the second overcharging condition is satisfied, performing, by the vehicle controller, at least one of a shift intervention control or a fuel cut control, as taught by Park, in order to reduce drivetrain rotational speed and resultant back electromotive force.
**Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jones and Niste fail to disclose wherein the first overcharging condition is satisfied based on (i) a charge level included in the battery state information being greater than a preset second threshold and (ii) the main relay being turned on.
However, Moon teaches wherein the first overcharging condition is satisfied based on (i) a charge level included in the battery state information being greater than a preset second threshold and (ii) the main relay being turned on (Maintains the main relay ON and determines an overcharging state when battery SOC exceeds a predetermined threshold – See at least FIG. 5)
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 Jones and Niste and include the feature of wherein the first overcharging condition is satisfied based on (i) a charge level included in the battery state information being greater than a preset second threshold and (ii) the main relay being turned on, as taught by Moon, to control a hybrid vehicle to a fail-safe strategy control technology when a hybrid vehicle malfunctions.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jones, Niste and Moon fail to disclose wherein the shift intervention control comprises transmitting, by the vehicle controller, an estimated accelerator position sensor (APS) signal to a transmission controller.
However, Park teaches wherein the shift intervention control comprises transmitting, by the vehicle controller, an estimated accelerator position sensor (APS) signal to a transmission controller (HCU 430 transmits a virtual APS signal to TCU 440 and TCU 440 executes upshifting corresponding to the virtual APS signal – See at least FIGS. 4 and 6; operations S222 and S232).
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 Jones, Niste and Moon and include the feature of wherein the shift intervention control comprises transmitting, by the vehicle controller, an estimated accelerator position sensor (APS) signal to a transmission controller, as taught by Park, in order to reduce drivetrain rotational speed and resultant back electromotive force.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jones and Niste fail to disclose charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor based on main relay state information indicating that a main relay of the vehicle is turned on; comparing a charge level included in the battery state information with a preset third threshold; and based on the charge level being greater than the preset third threshold, switching to an engine limp-home driving mode in which the vehicle operates using the engine alone.
However, Moon teaches charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor based on main relay state information indicating that a main relay of the vehicle is turned on; comparing a charge level included in the battery state information with a preset third threshold (Referring to FIG. 5, as the HSG becomes uncontrollable, the HSG driving signal may be disabled, the engine clutch may be locked up, and the engine may start through the motor start, before the reverse gear (e.g., the input of the R stage) is input by the driver. In particular, the hybrid vehicle control apparatus may ensure the startability of the engine through a motor start during vehicle stop or through a slip start during the driving of the vehicle. Thereafter, when the reverse gear (e.g., the input of the R stage) is input by the driver, the locked-up engine clutch may be unlocked (open) for reverse drive but the main relay of the battery for motor control may be continuously maintained in the turned on state. Thereafter, when the input of the R stage is released (e.g., movement to another gear stage), the engine clutch is locked up (engaged), and thus, the switch to the engine drive mode may be performed, and the main relay may be continuously maintained in the turned on state – See at least ¶52).
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 Jones and Niste and include the feature of charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor based on main relay state information indicating that a main relay of the vehicle is turned on; comparing a charge level included in the battery state information with a preset third threshold, as taught by Moon, to control a hybrid vehicle to a fail-safe strategy control technology when a hybrid vehicle malfunctions.
The combination of Jones, Niste and Moon fail to disclose based on the charge level being greater than the preset third threshold, switching to an engine limp-home driving mode in which the vehicle operates using the engine alone.
However, Park teaches based on the charge level being greater than the preset third threshold, switching to an engine limp-home driving mode in which the vehicle operates using the engine alone (Even when the battery or the motor is abnormally operated, the limp-home mode may be executed and, in the limp-home mode, an operation, in which the high voltage main relay is turned off to perform control for isolating the failed battery or for preventing driving of the failed motor, the engine clutch is connected and thus the vehicle is driven using power of the engine, may be executed. In the limp-home mode, pulse width modulation (PWM) control of the failed motor may be turned off, and the motor shares a drive shaft with the engine and is freewheeled by rotation of the drive shaft – See at least ¶50 and FIG. 1).
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 Jones, Niste and Moon and include the feature of based on the charge level being greater than the preset third threshold, switching to an engine limp-home driving mode in which the vehicle operates using the engine alone, as taught by Park, in order to reduce drivetrain rotational speed and resultant back electromotive force.
**Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jones, Niste and Moon fail to disclose performing, by the vehicle controller, a startup of the engine, and then transmitting, by the vehicle controller, to the BMS, a request message to turnoff the main relay.
However, park teaches performing, by the vehicle controller, a startup of the engine, and then transmitting, by the vehicle controller, to the BMS, a request message to turnoff the main relay (The operation of the third controller to execute upshifting may include transmitting, by the second controller, a predetermined accelerator position sensor (APS) signal to the third controller to operate the third controller to execute upshifting, when the main relay is in the off state and the second controller receives the first engine limiting signal. The control method may further include transmitting, by the second controller, the APS signal to the third controller, when the main relay is in the off state and the second controller receives the first engine limiting signal – See at least ¶23).
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 Jones, Niste and Moon and include the feature of performing, by the vehicle controller, a startup of the engine, and then transmitting, by the vehicle controller, to the BMS, a request message to turnoff the main relay, as taught by Park, in order to reduce drivetrain rotational speed and resultant back electromotive force.
Regarding claim 14, Jones fails to disclose wherein the startup of the engine is performed using the first motor.
However, Niste teaches wherein the startup of the engine is performed using the first motor (The first motor is connected to the output shaft of engine. In the example shown, the first motor is configured as a crankshaft integrated starter/generator (ISG) – See at least ¶30).
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 Jones and include the feature of wherein the startup of the engine is performed using the first motor, as taught by Niste, in order to provide redundant mechanical propulsion and maintain auxiliary power generation via the directly connected starter/generator.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 20250135959A1, in view of Niste et al., US 20130066499A1, in view of Moon et al., US 20210309205A1, in view of Park et al., US 20170240160A1, as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Boardman, US 5109729A, hereinafter referred to as Jones, Niste, Moon, Park and Boardman, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jones, Niste, Moon and Park fail to disclose wherein the estimated APS signal is set to 20-30% of a reference APS signal corresponding to a maximum accelerator position.
However, Boardman teaches wherein the estimated APS signal is set to 20-30% of a reference APS signal corresponding to a maximum accelerator position (Boardman, claims 7-10 and 21-22).
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 combination of Jones, Niste, Moon and Park and include the feature of wherein the estimated APS signal is set to 20-30% of a reference APS signal corresponding to a maximum accelerator position, as taught by Boardman, to provide a reduced accelerator command for controlling transmission shifting.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 20250135959A1, in view of Niste et al., US 20130066499A1, in view of Moon et al., US 20210309205A1, in view of Park et al., US 20170240160A1, as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Knoebel et al., US 20130080031A1, hereinafter referred to as Jones, Niste, Moon, Park and Knoebel, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jones, Niste, Moon and Park fail to disclose determining, by the vehicle controller, whether an engine speed obtained from an engine controller is greater than a preset speed threshold; and based on determining that the engine speed is greater than the preset speed threshold, performing, by the engine controller, the fuel cut control.
However, Knoebel teaches determining, by the vehicle controller, whether an engine speed obtained from an engine controller is greater than a preset speed threshold; and based on determining that the engine speed is greater than the preset speed threshold, performing, by the engine controller, the fuel cut control (The DFCO module could selectively transition the DFCO signal from the inactive state to the active state when the engine speed is greater than a predetermined minimum entry speed (e.g., approximately 1500 RPM) and one or more other DFCO entry conditions are satisfied. Under some circumstances, however, fuel could be cut off during vehicle deceleration when the one or more other DFCO entry conditions are satisfied and the engine speed is not greater than the predetermined minimum entry speed – See at least ¶50 and 51).
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 Jones, Niste, Moon and Park and include the feature of determining, by the vehicle controller, whether an engine speed obtained from an engine controller is greater than a preset speed threshold; and based on determining that the engine speed is greater than the preset speed threshold, performing, by the engine controller, the fuel cut control, as taught by Knoebel, in order to reduce excessive engine/drivetrain rotational speed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 20250135959A1, in view of Niste et al., US 20130066499A1, and in view of Wang et al., US 20100282530A1, hereinafter referred to as Jones, Niste and Wang, respectively.
Regarding claim 18, Jones discloses a vehicle comprising:
an engine (The propulsion system may, in various embodiments, include an internal combustion engine – See at least ¶39); and
a vehicle controller configurated to (The controller includes a vehicle controller that operates based on the neural networks model's output – See at least ¶47):
determine whether a failure has occurred in the second motor or the inverter (The exemplary method is first operative to monitor for at least one of a plurality of electric motors being in a motor fault state. This motor fault state can be determined in response to one or more diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) and fault flags. The motor fault can be detected at the power converter, motor controller, battery charger or the like and the DTCs and fault flags can be received via a controller area network (CAN) bus or other data bus. The motor fault state can be indicative of a faulty electric drive motor that is being rotated in response to tire friction with the road surface while one or more other drive motors are actively propelling the vehicle – See at least ¶76), and
execute at least one of a plurality of cooperative control operation schemes based on battery state information obtained from a battery management system (BMS) (The BMS monitors battery state of charge, temperature, and other battery parameters and following detection of a motor fault, battery voltage/charge information and battery current/voltage limits are used to determine torque, power, vehicle speed, and protective control operations – See at least ¶63, 76-80).
Jones fails to disclose a first motor and a second motor that are configured in parallel with each other, the first motor being directly connected to the engine; and based on determination of the failure in the second motor or the inverter, switch to a limp-home mode in which the vehicle operates using the engine and the first motor.
However, Niste teaches:
a first motor and a second motor that are configured in parallel with each other, the first motor being directly connected to the engine (a first electric motor configured to configured to propel a vehicle in response to a first drive current – See at least ¶23. A first electric motor/ISG drives a front axle and a second electric motor/ERAD drives a rear axle in a parallel hybrid configuration – See at least ¶27 and 43-44 and FIG. 2) and
based on determination of the failure in the first motor or the inverter, switching, by the vehicle controller, to a limp-home mode in which the vehicle operates using an engine of the vehicle and the second motor, wherein the second motor is connected to the engine and located farther from the engine than the first motor is (In response to a system failure in the main battery pack or power electronics unit disabling primary propulsion, the controller switches the vehicle to a limp-home mode where an additional battery used for back up purposes operates the directly connected ISG/first motor to start and run the interna combustion engine – See at least ¶30, 39, 42, 46 and 50).
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 Jones and include the feature of the vehicle including first and second motors that are arranged in parallel with each other and based on a determination of the failure in the second motor or the inverter, switching, by the vehicle controller, to a limp-home mode in which the vehicle operates using an engine of the vehicle and the first motor that is directly connected to the engine, as taught by Niste, in order to provide redundant mechanical propulsion and maintain auxiliary power generation via the directly connected starter/generator.
The combination of Jones and Niste fail to disclose an inverter connected to the second motor that is connected to the engine.
However, Wang teaches an inverter connected to the second motor that is connected to the engine (the second motor are connected in sequence and coaxially, that is, the rotating shafts of the first motor and the second motor are arranged coaxially with the output shaft of the engine. The output shaft of the engine is connected with the rotating shaft of the first motor via the first clutch, the rotating shaft of the first motor is connected with the rotating shaft of the second motor via the second clutch – See at least ¶28. the second power converter, the first power converter and the second power converter may have the bi-directional power conversion, thus, through the conversion of power switching unit, both motors may convert the electrical energy stored in the battery into the power output – See at least ¶29).
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 Jones and Niste and include the feature of an inverter connected to the second motor that is connected to the engine, as taught by Wang, to improve power efficiency and reduce the fuel consumption of a vehicle.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 20250135959A1, in view of Niste et al., US 20130066499A1, in view of Wang et al., US 20100282530A1, as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Xiaoyun Zang, US 20210261003A1, hereinafter referred to as Jones, Niste, Wang and Zang, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Jones, Niste and Wang fail to disclose wherein the failure in the second motor or the inverter comprises at least one of an over-temperature failure, a position sensor failure, or a temperature sensor failure.
However, Zang teaches wherein the failure in the second motor or the inverter comprises at least one of a position sensor failure (For example, when a vehicle experiences vibration or a fault such as insufficient motive power, a gain error or offset error might occur in the measurement value of the current sensor, or a gain error or offset error might occur in the measurement value of the position sensor – See at least ¶29).
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 Jones, Niste and Wang and include the feature of t wherein the failure in the second motor or the inverter comprises at least one of a position sensor failure, as taught by Zang, to provide a method for monitoring and identifying sensor faults in an electric drive system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 20250135959A1, in view of Niste et al., US 20130066499A1, in view of Wang et al., US 20100282530A1, in view of Moon et al., US 20210309205A1 and in view of Park et al., US 20170240160A1, hereinafter referred to as Jones, Niste, Wang, Moon and Park, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Jones, Niste and Wang fail to disclose charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor based on main relay state information indicating that a main relay of the vehicle is turned on; comparing a charge level included in the battery state information with a preset third threshold; and based on the charge level being greater than the preset third threshold, switching to an engine limp-home driving mode in which the vehicle operates using the engine alone.
However, Moon teaches charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor based on main relay state information indicating that a main relay of the vehicle is turned on; comparing a charge level included in the battery state information with a preset third threshold (Referring to FIG. 5, as the HSG becomes uncontrollable, the HSG driving signal may be disabled, the engine clutch may be locked up, and the engine may start through the motor start, before the reverse gear (e.g., the input of the R stage) is input by the driver. In particular, the hybrid vehicle control apparatus may ensure the startability of the engine through a motor start during vehicle stop or through a slip start during the driving of the vehicle. Thereafter, when the reverse gear (e.g., the input of the R stage) is input by the driver, the locked-up engine clutch may be unlocked (open) for reverse drive but the main relay of the battery for motor control may be continuously maintained in the turned on state. Thereafter, when the input of the R stage is released (e.g., movement to another gear stage), the engine clutch is locked up (engaged), and thus, the switch to the engine drive mode may be performed, and the main relay may be continuously maintained in the turned on state – See at least ¶52).
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 Jones, Niste and Wang and include the feature of charging a battery of the vehicle by back electromotive force of the second motor based on main relay state information indicating that a main relay of the vehicle is turned on; comparing a charge level included in the battery state information with a preset third threshold, as taught by Moon, to control a hybrid vehicle to a fail-safe strategy control technology when a hybrid vehicle malfunctions.
The combination of Jones, Niste, Wang and Moon fail to disclose based on the charge level being greater than the preset third threshold, switching to an engine limp-home driving mode in which the vehicle operates using the engine alone.
However, Park teaches based on the charge level being greater than the preset third threshold, switching to an engine limp-home driving mode in which the vehicle operates using the engine alone (Even when the battery or the motor is abnormally operated, the limp-home mode may be executed and, in the limp-home mode, an operation, in which the high voltage main relay is turned off to perform control for isolating the failed battery or for preventing driving of the failed motor, the engine clutch is connected and thus the vehicle is driven using power of the engine, may be executed. In the limp-home mode, pulse width modulation (PWM) control of the failed motor may be turned off, and the motor shares a drive shaft with the engine and is freewheeled by rotation of the drive shaft – See at least ¶50 and FIG. 1).
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 Jones, Niste, Wang and Moon and include the feature of based on the charge level being greater than the preset third threshold, switching to an engine limp-home driving mode in which the vehicle operates using the engine alone, as taught by Park, in order to reduce drivetrain rotational speed and resultant back electromotive force.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights