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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a pitch-angular-speed calculator …” in claim 1 is a computer implemented means plus function limitation described in paragraphs 0021, 0041-0053 and 0061-0062 and Figs. 1, 3 and 6, elements 50, 54, 130 and step B10. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this computer implemented means plus function limitation is any structure that calculates the angular speed of a vehicle body in a pitch direction; and “a drive controller…” in claims 1-3 is a computer implemented means plus function limitation described in paragraphs 0024-0029, 0031, 0041-0050 and 0061-0062, Figs. 1 and 3, elements 52, 56, and B30, B40 and B50. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this computer implemented means plus function limitation is any structure that changes the front-wheel and rear-wheel driving forces based on the vehicle body pitch angular speed and suppresses a posture change in the pitch direction while keeping total driving force unchanged.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (JP 7651960 B2, hereinafter referred to as “Ito”).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a control apparatus (Fig. 1, elements 5, 17) for a vehicle (Figs. 1 and 5, element 1) that includes (i) right and left front wheels (Fig. 1, element 14), (ii) a front-wheel drive apparatus (Fig. 1, element 2) which is configured (via Fig. 1, elements 10, 20, 30) to drive the front wheels, (iii) right and left rear wheels (Fig. 1, element 16) and (iv) a rear-wheel drive apparatus (Fig. 1, element 3) which is provided independently of the front-wheel drive apparatus and which is configured (via Fig. 1, element 12, 22, 32) to drive the rear wheels (paragraphs 0010-0020), the control apparatus comprising: a pitch-angular-speed calculator (Fig. 1, element 17) configured to calculate (Fig. 6, step S602) an angular speed of a vehicle body that is a body of the vehicle, in a pitch direction of the vehicle body (paragraphs 0016-0018, 0032-0046, 0054-0055, 0061-0063, 0070, 0084); and a drive controller (Fig. 1, element 5) configured to change a driving force (Fig. 6, steps S603, S604, S605) of the front wheels and a driving force of the rear wheels, based on the angular speed of the vehicle body in the pitch direction, for suppressing a posture change of the vehicle body in the pitch direction while keeping a total driving force of the vehicle unchanged (paragraphs 0045-0049, 0055-0057, 0061-0067, 0078-0082, 0085-0086).
Regarding claim 2, Ito discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when the posture change of the vehicle body is caused from a forward tilting posture to a backward tilting posture by the angular speed of the vehicle body in the pitch direction, the drive controller is configured to increase the driving force of the rear wheels and to reduce the driving force of the front wheels by an amount corresponding to an amount of increase of the driving force of the rear wheels (paragraphs 0032-0035, 0049, 0061-0067, 0071; Equations 7-8 and Fig. 6, steps S603-S606), and wherein, when the posture change of the vehicle body is caused from the backward tilting posture to the forward tilting posture by the angular speed of the vehicle body in the pitch direction, the drive controller is configured to reduce the driving force of the rear wheels and to increase the driving force of the front wheels by an amount corresponding to an amount of reduction of the driving force of the rear wheels (paragraphs 0061-0067, 0076-0079).
Regarding claim 3, Ito discloses the control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the drive controller is configured to increase the amount of the increase or reduction of the driving force of the rear wheels as an absolute value of the angular speed of the vehicle body in the pitch direction is increased (paragraphs 0056-0059, 0063-0064).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furuhira et al. (JP 2007118898 A, hereinafter referred to as “Furuhira”).
Regarding claim 1, Furuhira discloses a control apparatus for a vehicle that includes (i) right and left front wheels (Fig, 1, elements Wfl, Wfr), (ii) a front-wheel drive apparatus which is configured to drive the front wheels (Fig. 1, elements 11a, 11b; paragraphs 0017-0018), (iii) right and left rear wheels (Fig. 1, elements Wrl, Wrr) and (iv) a rear-wheel drive apparatus which is provided independently of the front-wheel drive apparatus and which is configured to drive the rear wheels (Fig. 1, elements 11c, 11d; paragraphs 0017-0018), the control apparatus comprising: a pitch-angular-speed calculator configured to calculate an angular speed of a vehicle body that is a body of the vehicle, in a pitch direction of the vehicle body (Fig. 1, elements 21a-21d; paragraphs 0019 and 0025-0026); and a drive controller configured to change a driving force of the front wheels and a driving force of the rear wheels, based on the angular speed of the vehicle body in the pitch direction, for suppressing a posture change of the vehicle body in the pitch direction while keeping a total driving force of the vehicle unchanged (Fig. 1, element 22; paragraph 0008-0009, 0012-0013, 0027-0030).
Regarding claim 2, Furuhira discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when the posture change of the vehicle body is caused from a forward tilting posture to a backward tilting posture by the angular speed of the vehicle body in the pitch direction, the drive controller is configured to increase the driving force of the rear wheels and to reduce the driving force of the front wheels by an amount corresponding to an amount of increase of the driving force of the rear wheels, and wherein, when the posture change of the vehicle body is caused from the backward tilting posture to the forward tilting posture by the angular speed of the vehicle body in the pitch direction, the drive controller is configured to reduce the driving force of the rear wheels and to increase the driving force of the front wheels by an amount corresponding to an amount of reduction of the driving force of the rear wheels (paragraphs 0009, 0027-0030).
Regarding claim 3, Furuhira discloses the control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the drive controller is configured to increase the amount of the increase or reduction of the driving force of the rear wheels as an absolute value of the angular speed of the vehicle body in the pitch direction is increased (paragraphs 0027-0030).
Regarding claim 5, Furuhira discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the front-wheel drive apparatus includes a front-wheel electric motor which is connected to a front wheel body of each of the right and left front wheels in a force transmittable manner and which includes a part disposed in a space on an inner peripheral side of the front wheel body (Fig. 1, elements 11a, 11b; paragraphs 0002, 0017-0018), and wherein the rear-wheel drive apparatus includes a rear-wheel electric motor which is connected to a rear wheel body of each of the right and left rear wheels in a force transmittable manner and which includes a part disposed in a space on an inner peripheral side of the rear wheel body (Fig. 1, elements 11c, 11d; paragraphs 0002, 0017-0018).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murakami et al. (US 20210031622 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Murakami”).
Regarding claim 4, Ito teaches the control apparatus as applied to claim 1 above, wherein (ii) the front-wheel drive apparatus includes (ii-1) a front wheel driving source (Fig. 1, element 10; paragraphs 0012, 0018-0019) […], and wherein (iv) the rear-wheel drive apparatus includes (iv-1) a rear-wheel driving force source (Fig. 1, element 11; paragraphs 0013 and 0018-0019). Ito is silent regarding “(ii-2) a front-wheel differential gear mechanism configured to distribute the drive force supplied from the front-wheel driving force source between the right and left front wheels and to allow a difference between rotations of the right and left front wheels, and […] (iv-2) a rear-wheel differential gear mechanism configured to distribute the drive force supplied from the rear-wheel driving force source between the right and left rear wheels and to allow a difference between rotations of the right and left rear wheels.”
Murakami teaches a dual motor electric 4WD vehicle with independent front and rear motors and conventional axle differentials, the vehicle comprising: a front wheel drive apparatus (Fig. 1, element MG1) configured to apply a drive force to right and left front wheels (Fig. 1, element 1RF, 1LF); a rear wheel drive apparatus (Fig. 1, element MG2) configured to apply drive force to right and left rear wheels (Fig. 1, element 1RR, 1LR; paragraphs 0023, 0030, 0034); wherein (ii) the front-wheel drive apparatus includes (ii-1) a front-wheel driving force source (Fig. 1, element MG1) and (ii-2) a front-wheel differential gear mechanism (Fig. 1, element 20) configured to distribute the drive force supplied from the front-wheel driving force source between the right and left front wheels and to allow a difference between rotations of the right and left front wheels (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0026, 0030), and wherein (iv) the rear-wheel drive apparatus includes (iv-1) a rear-wheel driving force source and (iv-2) a rear-wheel differential gear mechanism configured to distribute the drive force supplied from the rear-wheel driving force source between the right and left rear wheels and to allow a difference between rotations of the right and left rear wheels (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0027, 0034).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to combine the independent motors and pitch-control method taught by Ito with the conventional differential gear mechanisms taught by Murakami. Both references are directed to dual-motor electric 4WD vehicles. Adding the differentials is nothing more than the arrangement of known elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. The predictable results including a vehicle that retains Ito’s pitch suppression while permitting left/right wheel speed differences during cornering.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito (JP 2022098341 A) teaches an electric vehicle control that estimates actual pitch angle response and redistributes drive force between independent front and rear motors to suppress vehicle body pitch vibration while preserving total driving force. Ito appears to anticipate claims 1-2.
Sando (US 2024/0166194 A1) teaches a driving force control that adjusts the front-rear force distribution so that the vehicle’s pitch rate and pitch angle follow a corrected target. Sando is particularly relevant to claims 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
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, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights