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 . Claims 11-28 were previously pending. Claims 11-13, 17, and 20-28 have been amended. No claims have been newly added or cancelled. Thus, claims 11-28 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites “a starter” and it is unclear if this is referring to the separate dedicated starter introduced in claim 11 or a different starter. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to be referring to the same starter as in claim 11.
Claim 24 recites “a starter” and it is unclear if this is referring to the separate dedicated starter introduced in claim 22 or a different starter. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to be referring to the same starter as in claim 22.
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 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.
Claims 11-14 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabata (US 2015/0142232 A1) in view of Freisinger (DE 10 2009 041 721 A, cited in the IDS received 1/14/2022, a full machine translation was attached with the Office action dated 8/16/2024 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 11, Tabata discloses an apparatus comprising: a control unit for a hybrid drive of a vehicle (see at least Fig. 13, [0078]), wherein the hybrid drive comprises an internal combustion engine (see at least Fig. 13, [0078] – engine 12) and a single electric machine (see at least Fig. 13, [0078] – electric motor MG), wherein the hybrid drive is configured such that the single electric machine provides a drive torque of the vehicle and starts the internal combustion engine (see at least Fig. 13, [0078]), without a separate dedicated starter configured to start the internal combustion engine (see at least Fig. 13, [0078]), wherein the control unit is configured to: determine, based on an arithmetic calculation, a start-up time at which a proportion of a total power of the single electric machine is available to start the internal combustion engine, the proportion being the total power minus a starting power required for the single electric machine to start the internal combustion engine (see at least Figs. 13, 16, [0052, 0078-0081]), start the internal combustion engine, using only the starting power, via the single electric machine at the determined start-up time and without reducing the drive torque being provided by the single electric machine (see at least Figs. 13, 16, [0052, 0078-0082]).
Tabata does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the start-up time is a predicted start-up time.
Freisinger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the start-up time is a predicted start-up time (Freisinger – Fig. 1, [0057-0060] – if requirement 11 reaches or exceeds limit value 18, the internal combustion engine is required to be switched on… a point in time 20 at which request 11 requires the switching on is determined in advance, indicated by dashed curve 22… the request 11 can be torque of the internal combustion engine or a state of charge of the battery).
In order to predict when the engine must be started or when the engine is expected to start (Tabata – [0011, 0086]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Freisinger into the invention of Tabata with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve in the dynamics and accuracy of the advance determination of the point in time at which the internal combustion engine is required to be switched (Freisinger – [0033, 0056-0060]).
Regarding claim 12, Tabata discloses wherein the control unit is further configured: to determine, based on an operating strategy of the hybrid drive, that the internal combustion engine is to be started (see at least Figs. 13, 16, [0052, 0078-0082]); and, in reaction thereto, to determine the start-up time at which at least the proportion of the total power of the single electric machine is available for the starting operation of the internal combustion engine (see at least Figs. 13, 16, [0052, 0078-0082]).
Tabata does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the start-up time is a predicted start-up time.
Freisinger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the start-up time is a predicted start-up time (Freisinger – Fig. 1, [0057-0060]).
The motivation to combine Tabata and Freisinger is the same as in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Tabata discloses wherein the control unit is further configured: to ascertain speed information relating to a traveling speed of the vehicle; and/or to ascertain state of charge information relating to a state of charge of an electrical energy store for storing electrical energy for operation of the single electric machine (see at least Fig. 13, [0047, 0051, 0086-0087]); and, in a manner dependent on the speed information and/or the state of charge information and taking into consideration the operating strategy, to determine that the internal combustion engine is to be started (see at least Fig. 13, [0047, 0051, 0086-0087]).
Regarding claim 14, Tabata discloses wherein the control unit is further configured: to ascertain a driver demand relating to a drive torque demanded by a driver of the vehicle (see at least [0044]).
Tabata does not appear to explicitly disclose predict the start-up time based on the driver demand.
Freisinger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: predict the start-up time based on the driver demand (Freisinger – Fig. 1, [0057-0060]).
The motivation to combine Tabata and Freisinger is the same as in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 21, Tabata discloses wherein: the hybrid drive is configured such that the single electric machine is configured in a chronologically exclusive manner only for providing drive or only for the starting operation of the internal combustion engine; and the control unit is further configured to determine the start-up time at which the single electric machine is not required for driving the vehicle; or the hybrid drive is further configured such that the single electric machine can, out of the entire available total power, use a starting power for the starting operation of the internal combustion engine and a remainder of the total power for driving the vehicle; and the control unit is further configured to determine the start-up time at which at most the total power minus the starting power is required for driving the vehicle (see at least Figs. 13, 16, [0052, 0078-0082]).
Tabata does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the start-up time is a predicted start-up time.
Freisinger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the start-up time is a predicted start-up time (Freisinger – Fig. 1, [0057-0060]).
The motivation to combine Tabata and Freisinger is the same as in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 22, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 11, and it has been determined that claim 22 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 11; therefore, claim 22 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 11.
Regarding claim 23, Tabata discloses wherein the single electric machine starts the internal combustion engine without a starter (see at least Fig. 13, [0052, 0079-0080]).
Regarding claim 24, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 23, and it has been determined that claim 24 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 23; therefore, claim 24 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 23.
Regarding claim 25, Tabata does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to determine the proportion as the total power of the single electric machine minus a predefined starting power required to start the internal combustion engine, such that the remaining power is available for driving the vehicle (see at least Figs. 13, 16, [0052, 0078-0082]).
Regarding claim 26, Tabata discloses wherein the control unit is configured to start the internal combustion engine using only the starting power, while maintaining the drive torque provided by the single electric machine without reduction during the starting operation (see at least Figs. 13, 16, [0052, 0078-0082]).
Regarding claim 27, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 25, and it has been determined that claim 27 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 25; therefore, claim 27 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 25.
Regarding claim 28, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 26, and it has been determined that claim 28 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 26; therefore, claim 28 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 26.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabata in view of Freisinger and Park (US 2018/0297578 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Tabata fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is further configured: to ascertain dynamics information relating to dynamics of a driving behavior of a driver of the vehicle; and to predict the start-up time based on the dynamics information.
Freisinger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the start-up time is a predicted start-up time (Freisinger – Fig. 1, [0057-0060]).
The motivation to combine Tabata and Freisinger is the same as in the rejection of claim 11.
Park, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the control unit is further configured: to ascertain dynamics information relating to dynamics of a driving behavior of a driver of the vehicle; and to predict the start-up time based on the dynamics information (Park – Fig. 5, [0068, 0088-0090] - The driver acceleration/deceleration prediction module 130 may use the vehicle speed, the radar information, the navigation information, and the driving style of the driver detected through the driving information detection system 110 as input information to quantitatively digitize the type of driving manipulation that occurs in units of relatively short time. Thereby, the driver acceleration/deceleration prediction module 130 may determine the driver's momentary intention of acceleration/deceleration and generate a predicted value of near-future acceleration/deceleration of the driver… By combining the respective determination result of the steps of S2 and S3, the hybrid controller 140 may predict an event (i.e., gear shift or engine start to be occur in the near-future (S4) and may delay the current event or advance the event to occur in the near-future (i.e., near future event).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Park into the invention of Tabata with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of using predictive behavior to predict events such as gear shift or engine start, delaying or advancing either the shifting or engine starting so that the events overlap, so that the energy recovered in the shifting process can be used for engine starting to improve efficiency (Park – [0021, 0051, 0089-0090]).
Regarding claim 16, Tabata fails to explicitly disclose wherein the driving behavior is a present driving behavior of the driver of the vehicle.
Park, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the driving behavior is a present driving behavior of the driver of the vehicle (Park – Fig. 5, [0068] - The driver acceleration/deceleration prediction module 130 may use the vehicle speed, the radar information, the navigation information, and the driving style of the driver detected through the driving information detection system 110 as input information to quantitatively digitize the type of driving manipulation that occurs in units of relatively short time. Thereby, the driver acceleration/deceleration prediction module 130 may determine the driver's momentary intention of acceleration/deceleration.).
The motivation to combine Tabata and Park is the same as in the rejection of claim 15.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabata in view of Freisinger and Kitabatake (US 2015/0291149 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Tabata fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is further configured: to ascertain, for a sequence of future times, a respective first priority value for the single electric machine being used for driving the vehicle and a respective second priority value for the single electric machine being used for the starting operation of the internal combustion engine; and to ascertain the start-up time in a manner dependent on the first priority values and the second priority values in the sequence of future times.
Kitabatake, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the control unit is further configured: to ascertain, for a sequence of future times, a respective first priority value for the single electric machine being used for driving the vehicle and a respective second priority value for the single electric machine being used for the starting operation of the internal combustion engine (Kitabatake - [0051] – According to the preferred example, an HV threshold and an EV threshold are used to shift the drive mode. Specifically, the HV threshold is the boundary L0 drawn between a first EV mode region and an HV mode region in FIG. 2. In other words, the HV threshold is a criterion for determining start-up of the engine 1 to shift the drive mode between the first EV mode and the HV mode. On the other hand, the EV threshold is the boundary L1 drawn between the first EV mode region and a second EV mode region in FIG. 2. That is, the EV threshold is a criterion for shifting the drive mode between the first EV mode and the second EV mode. That is, those thresholds are criterions used in the control for shifting the drive mode. [0059] – Fig. 3, there is shown a time charge indicating the shifting operation of the drive mode based on a change in the SOC. As can be seen from FIG. 3, since both of the first and the second motor/ generators 2 and 3 are operated as motors under the second EV mode (i.e., first priority value, priority for M/G 2 to drive the vehicle), the battery is required to discharge the electric power in large amounts and the SOC is therefore lowered gradually. When the SOC is lowered to the EV threshold value Y1, the drive mode is shifted from the second EV mode to the first EV mode. In this situation, since an electric generation is not demanded, the engine 1 is still stopped by stopping fuel supply thereto while being idled. In addition, the engagement element that has been stopping rotation of the engine 1 during the second EV mode is brought into disengagement on the occasion of shifting to the first EV mode. [0060] - Under the first EV mode, the second motor/generator 3 is used as a power source and the vehicle is powered only by the second motor/generator 3, therefore, the SOC is further lowered. Consequently, when the SOC falls below the HV threshold value Y0, the drive mode is shifted from the first EV mode to the HV mode. Specifically, the drive mode is shifted to the HV mode by rotating the stopping engine 1 by the torque of the first motor/generator 2. (i.e., second priority value, priority for M/G 2 to start the engine 1)); and to ascertain the start-up time in a manner dependent on the first priority values and the second priority values in the sequence of future times (Kitabatake - [0015] - The control system is configured to predict the fact that the engine is expected to be started based on at least one of the state of charge of the battery, the vehicle speed, the drive demand and the temperature of the motor. Therefore, the electric power of the battery to be supplied to the motor can be ensured sufficiently even if the vehicle is propelled by only one of the motors. [0060] - Under the first EV mode, the second motor/generator 3 is used as a power source and the vehicle is powered only by the second motor/generator 3, therefore, the SOC is further lowered. Consequently, when the SOC falls below the HV threshold value Y0, the drive mode is shifted from the first EV mode to the HV mode. Specifically, the drive mode is shifted to the HV mode by rotating the stopping engine 1 by the torque of the first motor/generator 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kitabatake into the invention of Tabata with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of predicting when the engine is expected to be started based on threshold values corresponding to the state of charge of the battery (Kitabatake – [0008-0009]). This ensures that the drive force will not fall short (Kitabatake – [0015]).
Regarding claim 18, Tabata fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is further configured to select the start-up time as a time from the sequence of future times.
Kitabatake, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the control unit is further configured to select the start-up time as a time from the sequence of future times (Kitabatake - [0015] - The control system is configured to predict the fact that the engine is expected to be started based on at least one of the state of charge of the battery, the vehicle speed, the drive demand and the temperature of the motor. Therefore, the electric power of the battery to be supplied to the motor can be ensured sufficiently even if the vehicle is propelled by only one of the motors. [0060] - Under the first EV mode, the second motor/generator 3 is used as a power source and the vehicle is powered only by the second motor/generator 3, therefore, the SOC is further lowered. Consequently, when the SOC falls below the HV threshold value Y0, the drive mode is shifted from the first EV mode to the HV mode. Specifically, the drive mode is shifted to the HV mode by rotating the stopping engine 1 by the torque of the first motor/generator 2.).
The motivation to combine Tabata and Kitabatake is the same as in the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Tabata fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is further configured to ascertain the first priority value at a time from the sequence of future times: in a manner dependent on a driver demand relating to a drive torque demanded by a driver of the vehicle; and/or in a manner dependent on dynamics information relating to dynamics of a driving behavior of the driver of the vehicle.
Kitabatake, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the control unit is further configured to ascertain the first priority value at a time from the sequence of future times: in a manner dependent on a driver demand relating to a drive torque demanded by a driver of the vehicle; and/or in a manner dependent on dynamics information relating to dynamics of a driving behavior of the driver of the vehicle (Kitabatake - [0015] - The control system is configured to predict the fact that the engine is expected to be started based on at least one of the state of charge of the battery, the vehicle speed, the drive demand and the temperature of the motor. Therefore, the electric power of the battery to be supplied to the motor can be ensured sufficiently even if the vehicle is propelled by only one of the motors. [0059] – Fig. 3, there is shown a time charge indicating the shifting operation of the drive mode based on a change in the SOC. As can be seen from FIG. 3, since both of the first and the second motor/ generators 2 and 3 are operated as motors under the second EV mode, the battery is required to discharge the electric power in large amounts and the SOC is therefore lowered gradually. When the SOC is lowered to the EV threshold value Y1, the drive mode is shifted from the second EV mode to the first EV mode. In this situation, since an electric generation is not demanded, the engine 1 is still stopped by stopping fuel supply thereto while being idled. In addition, the engagement element that has been stopping rotation of the engine 1 during the second EV mode is brought into disengagement on the occasion of shifting to the first EV mode. [0060] - Under the first EV mode, the second motor/generator 3 is used as a power source and the vehicle is powered only by the second motor/generator 3, therefore, the SOC is further lowered. Consequently, when the SOC falls below the HV threshold value Y0, the drive mode is shifted from the first EV mode to the HV mode. Specifically, the drive mode is shifted to the HV mode by rotating the stopping engine 1 by the torque of the first motor/generator 2.).
The motivation to combine Tabata and Kitabatake is the same as in the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, Tabata fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is further configured to ascertain the second priority value at a time from the sequence of future times: in a manner dependent on a duration that has elapsed since a time at which a demand for the internal combustion engine to be started was detected; and/or in a manner dependent on state of charge information relating to a state of charge of an electrical energy store for storing electrical energy for operation of the single electric machine; and/or in a manner dependent on an urgency of the demand for the internal combustion engine to be starting.
Kitabatake, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the control unit is further configured to ascertain the second priority value at a time from the sequence of future times: in a manner dependent on a duration that has elapsed since a time at which a demand for the internal combustion engine to be started was detected; and/or in a manner dependent on state of charge information relating to a state of charge of an electrical energy store for storing electrical energy for operation of the single electric machine; and/or in a manner dependent on an urgency of the demand for the internal combustion engine to be starting (Kitabatake - [0015] - The control system is configured to predict the fact that the engine is expected to be started based on at least one of the state of charge of the battery, the vehicle speed, the drive demand and the temperature of the motor. Therefore, the electric power of the battery to be supplied to the motor can be ensured sufficiently even if the vehicle is propelled by only one of the motors. [0060] - Under the first EV mode, the second motor/generator 3 is used as a power source and the vehicle is powered only by the second motor/generator 3, therefore, the SOC is further lowered. Consequently, when the SOC falls below the HV threshold value Y0, the drive mode is shifted from the first EV mode to the HV mode. Specifically, the drive mode is shifted to the HV mode by rotating the stopping engine 1 by the torque of the first motor/generator 2.).
The motivation to combine Tabata and Kitabatake is the same as in the rejection of claim 17.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, new 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are presented above, necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-15 filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Matsui (US 2016/0031438 A1) is directed to a hybrid vehicle control device is provided with an engine, a motor, a mode switching mechanism and an engine start control unit. The motor is disposed in a drive system between the engine and a driving wheel for starting the engine and driving the driving wheel. The mode switching mechanism is operatively coupled to a connecting portion of the engine and the motor. The motor starts the engine upon an engine start request being outputted while traveling with only the motor as a drive source. The engine start control unit makes starting the engine more difficult, upon determining vehicle speed is increasing while a depression operation of an accelerator is occurring, until the rotational speed of the motor decreases, by performing an upshift operation that reduces a gear ratio by making a starting condition of the engine stricter as compared to a gear ratio prior to the upshift operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669