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 action is in reply to the Application Number 18/037,422 filed on 05/17/2023.
• Claim 17 is cancelled, and claims 15, 18-20, 23, 27-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 12/08/2025.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/17/2023, 10/06/2023 and 04/09/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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) 15, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minekawa (US 20050168180 A1) in view of Shallvari (US20130338863A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 28:
Minekawa teaches:
A method for controlling a hybrid vehicle comprising a motor serving as a driving source, battery configured to supply electric power to the motor, and an engine capable of supplying electric power to the battery by driving a generator, the method comprising: (Minekawa, para[20], “an electric motor 12 as drive sources, that is, a hybrid car… synchronous motor also functions as a generator… A battery 15 is disposed under this seat 14 and electric energy is exchanged between this battery 15 and M/G 12.”, and para[22], “power generated at the internal combustion engine 11 is transmitted to the axle shaft 17 via the transmission 16 and at the same time drives the M/G 12 as required to generate electric energy. The inverter 18 converts AC electric energy generated by the M/G 12 to DC and charges the battery”)
acquiring a background noise magnitude operating the engine;( Minekawa, abstract, “estimates the level of background noise … based on the vehicle speed and rotation speed, etc., of the internal combustion engine. ”)
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Shallvari teaches:
determining a parameter which is at least one of a temperature of a catalyst provided in an exhaust path of the engine, a temperature of cooling water in the engine, or a negative pressure of a vacuum servo provided in a brake of the hybrid vehicle; (Shallvari, para [09],” the catalyst efficiency predetermined threshold is determined by a temperature of the catalyst. The temperature of the catalyst can be determined using a model. The temperature of the catalyst can be determined by inputting a temperature from a temperature sensor”)
operating the engine responsive to either (i) the parameter falling below a forced operating threshold value or (ii) the background noise magnitude exceeding a noise threshold value and the parame+ter being greater than a forced operating threshold value and less than a stop threshold value, (Shallvari, para [18],” The method 100 begins at step 102 where it is determined whether the efficiency of the catalyst 26 is below a predetermined threshold. In accordance with the disclosed principles, the efficiency of the catalyst 26 is determined by its temperature; as such, the predetermined threshold may be a temperature in which the catalyst 26 no longer effectively converts exhaust gas toxins into non-toxic substances (e.g., a temperature at or near the catalyst's 26 “light-off” temperature)”, and para [20], “If, however, it is determined that the catalyst efficiency is below the predetermined threshold (i.e., a “yes” answer at step 102), electric vehicle operation is suspended (step 106) and the engine 20 is turned on”) Examiner note: Shallvari teaches that operating the engine responsive to the catalyst temperature is below the “light-off” temperature in which the catalyst no longer effectively converts exhaust gas toxins into non-toxic substances . The catalyst “light-off” temperature is a forced engine operating threshold value.
and stopping the engine responsive to either (i) the parameter being equal to or greater than the stop threshold value or (ii) the background noise magnitude being less than or equal to the noise threshold value and the parameter being greater than the forced operating threshold value and less than the stop threshold value. (Shallvari, para [21],” The control unit 40 leaves the engine on long enough to achieve optimal catalyst efficiency. Once the desired catalyst efficiency is achieved, the control unit 40 can initiate the electric vehicle operating mode again”) Examiner note: Shallvari teaches that keep running the engine until the optimal catalyst efficiency (temperature) is achieved. The desired catalyst efficiency (temperature) is the engine stop threshold value.
the stop threshold value greater than the forced operating threshold value; (Shallvari, para [20], “If, however, it is determined that the catalyst efficiency is below the predetermined threshold … the engine 20 is turned on”, and para [21],” The control unit 40 leaves the engine on long enough to achieve optimal catalyst efficiency. Once the desired catalyst efficiency is achieved, the control unit 40 can initiate the electric vehicle operating mode again”) Examiner note: Shallvari teaches that turning on the engine responsive when the catalyst temperature is below the “light-off” temperature, then keep running the engine long enough to achieve optimal catalyst efficiency (temperature). Therefore, the engine stop threshold value( optimal catalyst temperature) is greater than the forced operating threshold value (“light-off” temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Shallvari in order to include determining a parameter which is at least one of a temperature of a catalyst provided in an exhaust path of the engine, a temperature of cooling water in the engine, or a negative pressure of a vacuum servo provided in a brake of the hybrid vehicle; operating the engine responsive to either (i) the parameter falling below a forced operating threshold value or (ii) the background noise magnitude exceeding a noise threshold value and the parameter being greater than a forced operating threshold value and less than a stop threshold value, the stop threshold value greater than the forced operating threshold value; and stopping the engine responsive to either (i) the parameter being equal to or greater than the stop threshold value or (ii) the background noise magnitude being less than or equal to the noise threshold value and the parameter being greater than the forced operating threshold value and less than the stop threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve vehicle fuel economy and reduce vehicle emissions” (Shallvari, Description).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minekawa (US 20050168180 A1)in view of Shallvari (US20130338863A1), further in view of Tooyama (US20070203638A1).
Regarding claim 18:
Minekawa in view of Shallvari, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Minekawa teaches:
The method for controlling the hybrid vehicle according to claim 15, wherein: (Minekawa, para[20], “a hybrid car”)
in response to the background noise magnitude exceeding the noise threshold value (Minekawa, para[32], “background noise level is greater than the first threshold”)
… when the background noise magnitude falls below the noise threshold value. (Minekawa, para[32], “the background noise level is equal to or below a predetermined first threshold”)
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Shallvari teaches:
the engine is stopped (Shallvari, para [21],” The control unit 40 leaves the engine on long enough to achieve optimal catalyst efficiency. Once the desired catalyst efficiency is achieved, the control unit 40 can initiate the electric vehicle operating mode again”)
and the parameter being greater than the forced operating threshold value and less than the stop threshold value, (Shallvari, para [21],” The control unit 40 leaves the engine on long enough to achieve optimal catalyst efficiency. Once the desired catalyst efficiency is achieved, the control unit 40 can initiate the electric vehicle operating mode again”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Shallvari in order to include the engine is stopped and the parameter being greater than the forced operating threshold value and less than the stop threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the fuel consumption” (Shallvari, Description).
Minekawa in view of Shallvari does not explicitly teach, but Tooyama teaches:
In a case where it is determined that the …vehicle travels on a congested road a congested road, (Tooyama, para[127], “for a road such as a federal or state road, sections might be defined as "congested"”)
…and a vehicle speed of the… vehicle is zero. (Tooyama, para[127],” for a road such as a federal or state road, sections might be defined as "congested" where the vehicle speed is zero”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa in view of Shallvari to include these above teachings from Tooyama in order to include travels on a congested road a congested road and a vehicle speed of the vehicle is zero. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the comfort of the occupants.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minekawa (US 20050168180 A1)in view of Shallvari (US20130338863A1), further in view of Birnbaum (US20140267076A1).
Regarding claim 19:
Minekawa in view of Shallvari, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Birnbaum teaches:
The method for controlling the hybrid vehicle according to claim 15, wherein: the noise threshold value increases as the parameter increases.( Birnbaum, para[13], “ if the level of noise is above a predetermined threshold, then an…parameter …may be increased.”, and para [25], “vehicle”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa in view of Shallvari to include these above teachings from Birnbaum in order to include wherein: the noise threshold value increases as the parameter increases. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the comfort of the occupants.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minekawa (US 20050168180 A1)in view of Shallvari (US20130338863A1), further in view of Furuta (US20130066495A1).
Regarding claim 20:
Minekawa in view of Shallvari, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Minekawa teaches:
The method for controlling the hybrid vehicle according to claim 15, wherein: (Minekawa, para[20], “a hybrid car”)
the background noise magnitude exceeding the noise threshold value (Minekawa, para[32], “background noise level is greater than the first threshold”)
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Shallvari teaches:
and the parameter being greater than the forced operating threshold value and less than the stop threshold value, (Shallvari, para [21],” The control unit 40 leaves the engine on long enough to achieve optimal catalyst efficiency. Once the desired catalyst efficiency is achieved, the control unit 40 can initiate the electric vehicle operating mode again”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Shallvari in order to include the parameter being greater than the forced operating threshold value and less than the stop threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the fuel consumption” (Shallvari, Description).
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Furuta teaches:
operating the engine, an output of the engine increases as the background noise magnitude increases ( Furuta, para[54], “as the wind noise and road noises increase as the vehicle speed increases, it is possible to increase the amount of engine operation”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Furuta in order to include operating the engine, an output of the engine increases as the background noise magnitude increases. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ensuing comfort in the vehicle compartment” (Furuta, Description).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minekawa (US 20050168180 A1)in view of Shallvari (US20130338863A1), further in view of Sasaki (US 20090281690 A1).
Regarding claim 23:
Minekawa in view of Shallvari, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Minekawa teaches:
The method for controlling the hybrid vehicle according to claim 15, wherein: (Minekawa, para[20], “a hybrid car”)
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Shallvari teaches:
the parameter is the temperature of the catalyst provided in the exhaust path of the engine or the temperature of the cooling water in the engine, (Shallvari, para [09],” the catalyst efficiency predetermined threshold is determined by a temperature of the catalyst.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Shallvari in order to include the parameter is the temperature of the catalyst provided in the exhaust path of the engine or the temperature of the cooling water in the engine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the fuel consumption” (Shallvari, Description).
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Sasaki teaches:
and the stop threshold value increases as a temperature of outside air with respect to the hybrid vehicle decreases ( Sasaki, para[184], “the threshold value is set as a larger value when the outside air temperature is lower”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Sasaki in order to include the stop threshold value increases as a temperature of outside air with respect to the hybrid vehicle decreases. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the comfort of the occupants.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minekawa (US 20050168180 A1)in view of Shallvari (US20130338863A1), further in view of Wakashiro (US 20020116112 A1), Sasaki (US 20090281690 A1) and Oguri (US 20170015204 A1).
Regarding claim 27:
Minekawa in view of Shallvari, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Minekawa teaches:
The method for controlling the hybrid vehicle according to claim 15, wherein: (Minekawa, para[20], “a hybrid car”)
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Wakashiro teaches:
the parameter is the negative pressure of the vacuum servo provided in the brake of the hybrid vehicle, ( Wakashiro, para[49], “a negative pressure sensor S8 for detecting the master power internal negative pressure (MPGA) of the brake is installed in this brake servo”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Wakashiro in order to include the parameter is the negative pressure of the vacuum servo provided in the brake of the hybrid vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the comfort of the occupants.
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Sasaki teaches:
and the stop threshold value increases… (Sasaki, para[184], “the threshold value is set as a larger value”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Sasaki in order to include wherein: the operation parameter is an SOC of the battery, and the higher a speed of the hybrid vehicle, the larger a threshold value to be compared with the operation parameter in stop determination of the engine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the comfort of the occupants.
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Oguri teaches:
…as an operation frequency of the brake increases ( Oguri, para[19], “ frequency of the release of the brake pedal is higher”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Oguri in order to include as an operation frequency of the brake increases. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the comfort of the occupants.
Claim(s) 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minekawa (US 20050168180 A1)in view of Shallvari (US20130338863A1), further in view of Lancaster (US20200006912A1).
Regarding claims 29 and 30:
Minekawa in view of Shallvari, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15 and 28. Minekawa teaches:
The method for controlling the hybrid vehicle according to claim 15, further comprising: (Minekawa, para[20], “a hybrid car”)
…even if the background noise magnitude exceeds the noise threshold value. (Minekawa, para[32], “background noise level is greater than the first threshold”)
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Shallvari teaches:
not operating the engine (Shallvari, para [21],” The control unit 40 leaves the engine on long enough to achieve optimal catalyst efficiency. Once the desired catalyst efficiency is achieved, the control unit 40 can initiate the electric vehicle operating mode again”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Shallvari in order to include not operating the engine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the fuel consumption” (Shallvari, Description).
Minekawa does not explicitly teach, but Lancaster teaches:
setting an upper limit control value of background noise that is greater than the forced operating threshold value and less than the stop threshold value; and responsive to the parameter being equal to or greater than the upper limit control value of background noise and smaller than the stop threshold value, (Lancaster, para [94], “The upper limit on the … noise … less than 1×10.sup.4 Hz.sup.2/Hz at frequencies greater than 10 kHz. ”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle-mounted battery cooling from Minekawa to include these above teachings from Lancaster in order to include setting an upper limit control value of background noise that is greater than the forced operating threshold value and less than the stop threshold value; and responsive to the parameter being equal to or greater than the upper limit control value of background noise and smaller than the stop threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the comfort of the occupants.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant's amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) and 112(a) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/08/2025 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667