DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-16 remain pending.
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 .
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 a 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 01/02/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunichi et al. JP2016049838A (hereinafter, Bunichi), in view of Song et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2013/0123063A1 (hereinafter, Song), in further view of Kim et al. KR101780289B1 (hereinafter, Kim), in further view of Imamura et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2016/0236671A1 (hereinafter, Imamura).
Regarding Claim 1, Bunichi describes a method of regenerative braking control of a hybrid electric vehicle (regenerative braking for a hybrid vehicle, Bunichi, Paragraph 0001), the method comprising:
-determining a total braking amount when a braking request is generated in a hybrid electric vehicle (determining a total braking amount as requested by operator, Bunichi, Paragraphs 0005 and 0016) …
-when the engine clutch has been engaged … in consideration of the total braking amount and … charge power by the regenerative braking of the second motor is less than charge limit power of the battery (charging a battery using the regenerative braking of the first motor when the engine clutch has been engaged in consideration of the total braking amount and the charge power is less than a charge limit of the battery, Bunichi, Paragraphs 0013-0015, 0021, and 0028-0029).
Bunichi does not specifically disclose the method to include a first motor directly connected to an engine, a second motor connected to an input side of a transmission, and an engine clutch having a first end directly connected to the first motor and a second end directly connected to the second motor; and [charging a battery using regenerative braking of the first motor when the engine clutch has been engaged] to connect the engine and the first motor to the transmission.
Song discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Song describes a vehicle system that includes a first motor connected directly to an engine (Song, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0044). Song also describes a second motor connected to an input side of a transmission (Song, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0045). Additionally, Song describes an engine clutch having a first end directly connected to the first motor and a second end directly connected to a second motor (Song, Figure 2). Lastly, Song describes charging a battery using regenerative braking of the first motor when the engine clutch has been engaged (Song, Paragraph 0044 and Figure 2).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Bunichi to include a first motor directly connected to an engine, a second motor connected to an input side of a transmission, and an engine clutch having a first end directly connected to the first motor and a second end directly connected to the second motor; and [charging a battery using regenerative braking of the first motor when the engine clutch has been engaged] to connect the engine and the first motor to the transmission, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Song.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having regenerative braking and motor connection to the transmission allows for increased driving performance (Song, Paragraph 0003).
However, Bunichi and Song do not specifically disclose a method to include when regenerative braking of the second motor is already being performed, additionally charging the battery … based on a determination that charge power by the regenerative braking of the second motor is less than charge limit power of the battery.
Kim discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Kim describes the ability of a vehicle system that when regenerative braking of a second motor is already being performed having the ability to additionally charge the battery of the vehicle with another motor (i.e., first motor) when it is determined that the regenerative braking of the second motor is less than a charge limit power of the battery (Kim, Paragraphs 0020, 0051-0053, and Figures 4 and 7).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Bunichi to include when regenerative braking of the second motor is already being performed, additionally charging the battery using regenerative braking of the first motor based on a determination that charge power by the regenerative braking of the second motor is less than charge limit power of the battery, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kim.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining maximum charge limit ensures a linearity between regenerative braking and a battery charging by an engine stop, which increases the efficiency of the vehicle (Kim, Paragraph 0001).
However, Bunichi, Song, and Kim do not specifically disclose a method to include additionally charging the battery using regenerative braking of the first motor only while the engine clutch remains in an engaged state.
Imamura discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Imamura describes the ability to engage the engine clutch so that charging of the battery via regenerative braking of the first motor can occur (Imamura, Paragraph 0162 and Figure 4).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Bunichi to include additionally charging the battery using regenerative braking of the first motor only while the engine clutch remains in an engaged state, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Imamura.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because engaging the engine clutch while using the regenerative braking allows for charging of the battery system rather than propulsion of the vehicle (Imamura, Paragraph 0162).
Regarding Claim 2, Bunichi, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, further comprising: keeping the engine clutch engaged when the engine clutch has been engaged at a point in time at which the braking request is generated and when the total braking amount is more than base deceleration torque (engine clutch is engaged or continued to be engaged when the braking request is more than an deceleration torque, Bunichi, Paragraphs 0013-0015, 0021, and 0028-0029).
Regarding Claim 3, Bunichi, as modified, describes the method of claim 2, wherein the base deceleration torque is a sum torque of maximum regenerative braking torque of the second motor and friction torque of the engine that are based on wheels (deceleration torque can be the sum of the regenerative braking torque of the second motor and the engine, Bunichi, Paragraphs 0033-0038).
Regarding Claim 4, Bunichi, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, further comprising: disengaging the engine clutch when the engine clutch has been engaged at a point in time at which the braking request is generated and when the total braking amount is base deceleration torque or less (disengaging the engine clutch when the braking request generated is less than the deceleration torque, Bunichi, Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 5, Bunichi, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein total deceleration torque of driving sources when the additional charging is performed is a sum torque of friction torque of the engine, regenerative braking torque of the first motor, and regenerative braking torque of the second motor that are based on wheels (sum of torque is the friction torque of the engine and the regenerative braking torque of the first and second motor, Bunichi, Paragraphs 0028-0032).
Regarding Claim 6, Bunichi, as modified, describes the method of claim 5, further comprising: performing hydraulic braking corresponding to a deficit of a braking amount when the total braking amount is more than the total deceleration torque (applying braking when the deceleration torque required is more than the required deceleration torque desired by the occupant, Bunichi, Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 7, Bunichi, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing the regenerative braking using only the second motor when the engine clutch has been engaged but charge power by regenerative braking of the second motor is not less than the charge limit power (applying the second motor to charge the battery when the charge limit has not been reached, Bunichi, Paragraphs 0037 and 0015).
Regarding Claim 8, Bunichi, as modified, describes a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which a program is stored for performing the method of regenerative braking control for a hybrid electric vehicle of claim 1 (controlled via software and a controller, Bunichi, Paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 9, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Bunichi, as modified, describes the hybrid electric vehicle of claim 9, wherein the second control unit is further configured to: limit maximum regenerative braking torque of the first motor to a value obtained by subtracting regenerative braking torque of the second motor and friction torque of the engine from the total braking amount; and limit maximum regenerative braking power of the first motor to a value obtained by subtracting charge power according to regenerative braking of the second motor from the charge limit power (limiting the regenerative braking torque by not allowing one or both of the motors to charge the battery system based on charge value, Bunichi, Paragraphs 0036-0038).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667