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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-8 have been amended. Claim(s) 4-5 and 11-12 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, and 13-15 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach the newly amended claim limitations of independent claims 1, 7, and 8. Applicant asserts that due to this the claims are allowable.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7, and 8 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.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as well. Regarding the newly amended limitation of the independent claims, reciting “wherein the power consumption is determined based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power,” the examiner would point towards a newly cited section of Ikedaya, [0069] to teach this limitation. This section of Ikedaya teaches, “On this occasion, the motor target torque in the independent motoring control is set, for example, based on the regenerative electric power or the rotation speed (the traveling speed of the vehicle 4) in the second motor 2, the charging state of the battery 5, the intended regenerative braking force, etc. Thus, as the regenerative electric power increases, the motor 1 is driven at a higher speed to consume a larger amount of electric power. Accordingly, suitable magnitude of a regenerative braking force is generated even when the battery 5 cannot be charged at all.” (Emphasis added). This section of Ikedaya teaches implicitly that the system adjusts the power consumed in a motoring operation based on the charging level of the battery/limit of the charging and the amount of expected charging power from regenerative braking. The more braking generated while the battery is more charged, results in a more extreme motoring of the engine in order to “consume a larger amount of electrical power.” As established by [0069] of Ikedaya the motoring of the engine through the regenerative braking/battery discharge prevents the battery from charging, and ensures that an overcharge situation does not occur. [0005] and [0048] both teach of the dangers of overcharging a battery and have charge determination devices to see how charged a battery is; this data helps inform how much battery is wasted to ensure an overcharge event does not occur. In light of these teachings the examiner finds the independent claims: 1, 7, and 8, rejected under 35 USC 103. The dependent claims would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter. Please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103,” for detailed explanation and mapping.
Additionally, the applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive. The applicant’s argument regarding Tabata is in relation to uncited paragraphs that teach an alternate mode of operation. Applicant’s remarks recite language about “mode 8.” However the cited portions of Tabata [0056], [0058]-[0059], and [0062] teach the uses of modes 5 and 6, which have the opened clutches that allow for the motoring of the engine. For this reason the examiner does not find the argument persuasive regarding independent claims 1, 7, and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota (US PG Pub 2011/0000725) in view of Hee, (KR-2011-0005928-A) Tabata, (JP-3709666-B2) and Ikedaya (US PG Pub 2015/0367835).
Regarding claim 1, Murota teaches a method for controlling a creep torque of a hybrid electric vehicle, where the hybrid electric vehicle includes: a first motor connected to an engine, (Fig. 2, items 2 and 3; and [0025] teach a first motor connected to an engine) a second motor (Fig. 2, item 5 and [0025] teach a second motor)
determining, by a controller, ([0048] teaches a processor which can control the system via instructions) an expected charging power that is expected ([0052] teaches determining an expected power supply from regenerative braking) when ([0049]-[0050], Abstract, and Fig. 1 item 102; teach power regeneration by the second motor generator)
discharging a battery by idling the engine with the first motor (Fig. 1, Fig 3, and at least [0076]-[0080] teach a motoring of the engine by a first motor in the event that the battery will be overcharged by the regeneration of power by the second motor) and
wherein discharging the battery includes determining an operating point of the first motor for the idling of the engine when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than the charging limit power, ([0051]-[0053] teaches determining an operating point of a first motor to ensure that the consumed power exceeds the regenerative charging power)
wherein determining the operating point of the first motor includes determining the operating point of the first motor to consume power by the first motor, ([0049]-[0053] teaches determining a power consumption value for the motor generator to motor the engine so that the system consumes the correct amount of regenerative power) and
Murota does not teach directly connected to a transmission input terminal, and an engine clutch connected to an engine shaft and the second motor; a target creep torque is generated; opening the engine clutch when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than a battery charging limit power; while the engine clutch is open; and generating the target creep torque through the regenerative braking of the second motor; and wherein the power consumption is determined based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.
However, Hee teaches “directly connected to a transmission input terminal,” (Fig. 1, items 20-30 and Page 1 highlight 1; teach a drive motor and transmission directly in line) and “an engine clutch connected to an engine shaft and the second motor;” (Fig. 1, item 50; and Page 1, highlight 1; teach a clutch connecting the engine and a drive motor) “a target creep torque is generated;” (Page 1, highlight 2; teaches a determined creep torque being generated by the system) and “generating the target creep torque through the regenerative braking of the second motor.”(Page 1, highlight 2; teaches the creep torque being a subset of the regenerative braking determined by the vehicle system)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota and Hee; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of hybrid vehicles, including generating power through regenerative braking mechanisms. The use of said regenerative braking allows for the hybrid vehicle to recharge its batteries as it travels though reversing the motor instead of using traditional friction brakes. The use of a transmission and clutch would be obvious to try and are well understood ways to make a hybrid vehicle. These may be TMED, PHEV, Series, parallel, or other configurations that are well known and would be obvious to try in the art. Regarding the generation of a creep torque via the regenerative braking as Hee explains without creep torque the feeling of stopping a hybrid or electric vehicle can feel unnatural as the vehicle does not creep forward. Therefore the creep is needed to put a driver at ease. This system of using the regenerative braking to make said creep torque prevents the vehicle from using too much battery power and would allow for a more optimum energy usage. Hee explains ways to improve energy consumption levels during creep torque and ensure that the vehicle operates as efficiently as possible while regeneratively braking and generating creep torque.
Neither Murota nor Hee teach opening the engine clutch when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than a battery charging limit power; and while the engine clutch is open; and wherein the power consumption is determined based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.
However, Tabata teaches “opening the engine clutch when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than a battery charging limit power” ([0058]-[0059] teaches opening the clutch that connects the engine to the motor system. By opening this clutch the engine is not rotating the motor and in effect charging the battery. This is determined based on the charged state of the system, [0056]) and “while the engine clutch is open;” ([0062] teaches that the clutch connecting a second motor and an engine is open during operation, this allows for the second motor and the engine to operate at different speeds)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota and Hee with Tabata; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles. This control includes clutches, and other mechanical/electrical linkages. As Tabata teaches in its background creep torque needs to be controlled in electric vehicles in order to ensure that energy is not wasted as the vehicle slows down. In [0012] Tabata teaches how the creep torque may be generated via a motor acting as a regenerative braking system. By opening the clutch between the motor and the engine the system ensures that excessive energy is not wasted and that the engine/motor don’t cause issues by being meshed up while operating at different speeds.
None of the above art teaches wherein the power consumption is determined based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.
However, Ikedaya teaches “wherein the power consumption is determined based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.” ([0069] teaches “On this occasion, the motor target torque in the independent motoring control is set, for example, based on the regenerative electric power or the rotation speed (the traveling speed of the vehicle 4) in the second motor 2, the charging state of the battery 5, the intended regenerative braking force, etc. Thus, as the regenerative electric power increases, the motor 1 is driven at a higher speed to consume a larger amount of electric power. Accordingly, suitable magnitude of a regenerative braking force is generated even when the battery 5 cannot be charged at all.” (Emphasis added). This section of Ikedaya teaches implicitly that the system adjusts the power consumed in a motoring operation based on the charging level of the battery/limit of the charging and the amount of expected charging power from regenerative braking. The more braking generated while the battery is more charged, results in a more extreme motoring of the engine in order to “consume a larger amount of electrical power.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota, Hee, and Tabata with Ikedaya; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles and regenerative braking systems, with some form of motoring. As established by [0069] of Ikedaya the motoring of the engine through the regenerative braking/battery discharge prevents the battery from charging, and ensures that an overcharge situation does not occur. [0005] and [0048] both teach of the dangers of overcharging a battery and have charge determination devices to see how charged a battery is; this data helps inform how much battery is wasted to ensure an overcharge event does not occur.
Regarding claim 2, Murota teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising when the expected charging power is less than the charging limit power, controlling, by the controller, the first motor to not idle the engine. (Fig. 1 Steps 102-105, looping, and [0082]-[0088], and [0050]-[0053] teach that the system may use the regenerative braking power to charge the battery in a case where the battery is not reaching the charging limit)
Regarding claim 3, Murota teaches the method of claim 1 wherein discharging the battery includes discharging the battery by idling the engine by the first motor, (Fig. 1, Fig 3, and at least [0076]-[0080] teach a motoring of the engine by a first motor in the event that the battery will be overcharged by the regeneration of power by the second motor)
Murota does not teach, in a state where a fuel injection of the engine is prohibited.
However, Ikedaya teaches “in a state where a fuel injection of the engine is prohibited.” ([0036] teaches motoring of the engine without fuel being injected)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota, Hee, and Tabata with Ikedaya; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles and regenerative braking systems, with some form of motoring. By motoring the engine without using fuel, as taught by Ikedaya, two objectives are achieved. Firstly there is a fuel savings that results from the systems not burning the fuel, Secondly the system keeps cooler as there is no burning fuel, which allows for more temperature control. As taught in [0036] based on the amount of regenerative torque generated by the motor it may become unnecessary to use fuel to drive the engine and this results in a system that does not need such firing.
Regarding claim 7, Murota teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium configured to record a program to direct a processor to perform acts of: ([0048] teaches a processor which can control the system via instructions) determining an expected charging power that is expected ([0052] teaches determining an expected power supply from regenerative braking) ([0049]-[0050], Abstract, and Fig. 1 item 102; teach power regeneration by the second motor generator) wherein the second motor (Fig. 2, item 5 and [0025] teach a second motor) is ;
discharging a battery of the hybrid electric vehicle by idling an engine (Fig. 1, Fig 3, and at least [0076]-[0080] teach a motoring of the engine by a first motor in the event that the battery will be overcharged by the regeneration of power by the second motor) with a first motor connected to the engine (Fig. 2, items 2 and 3; and [0025] teach a first motor connected to an engine)
wherein discharging the battery includes determining an operating point of the first motor for the idling of the engine when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than the charging limit power, ([0051]-[0053] teaches determining an operating point of a first motor to ensure that the consumed power exceeds the regenerative charging power)
wherein determining the operating point of the first motor includes determining the operating point of the first motor to consume power by the first motor, ([0049]-[0053] teaches determining a power consumption value for the motor generator to motor the engine so that the system consumes the correct amount of regenerative power) and
Murota does not teach directly connected to a transmission input terminal, and an engine clutch connected to an engine shaft and the second motor; when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than a battery charging limit power, opening the engine clutch; a target creep torque is generated; while the engine clutch is open; and generating the target creep torque through the regenerative braking of the second motor; and wherein the power consumption is determined based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.
However, Hee teaches “directly connected to a transmission input terminal,” (Fig. 1, items 20-30 and Page 1 highlight 1; teach a drive motor and transmission directly in line) and “an engine clutch connected to an engine shaft and the second motor;” (Fig. 1, item 50; and Page 1, highlight 1; teach a clutch connecting the engine and a drive motor) “a target creep torque is generated;” (Page 1, highlight 2; teaches a determined creep torque being generated by the system) and “generating the target creep torque through the regenerative braking of the second motor.”(Page 1, highlight 2; teaches the creep torque being a subset of the regenerative braking determined by the vehicle system)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota and Hee; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of hybrid vehicles, including generating power through regenerative braking mechanisms. The use of said regenerative braking allows for the hybrid vehicle to recharge its batteries as it travels though reversing the motor instead of using traditional friction brakes. The use of a transmission and clutch would be obvious to try and are well understood ways to make a hybrid vehicle. These may be TMED, PHEV, Series, parallel, or other configurations that are well known and would be obvious to try in the art. Regarding the generation of a creep torque via the regenerative braking as Hee explains without creep torque the feeling of stopping a hybrid or electric vehicle can feel unnatural as the vehicle does not creep forward. Therefore the creep is needed to put a driver at ease. This system of using the regenerative braking to make said creep torque prevents the vehicle from using too much battery power and would allow for a more optimum energy usage. Hee explains ways to improve energy consumption levels during creep torque and ensure that the vehicle operates as efficiently as possible while regeneratively braking and generating creep torque.
Neither Murota nor Hee teach when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than a battery charging limit power, opening the engine clutch; and while the engine clutch is open; and wherein the power consumption is determined based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.
However, Tabata teaches “when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than a battery charging limit power, opening the engine clutch;” ([0058]-[0059] teaches opening the clutch that connects the engine to the motor system. By opening this clutch the engine is not rotating the motor and in effect charging the battery. This is determined based on the charged state of the system, [0056]) and “while the engine clutch is open;” ([0062] teaches that the clutch connecting a second motor and an engine is open during operation, this allows for the second motor and the engine to operate at different speeds)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota and Hee with Tabata; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles. This control includes clutches, and other mechanical/electrical linkages. As Tabata teaches in its background creep torque needs to be controlled in electric vehicles in order to ensure that energy is not wasted as the vehicle slows down. In [0012] Tabata teaches how the creep torque may be generated via a motor acting as a regenerative braking system. By opening the clutch between the motor and the engine the system ensures that excessive energy is not wasted and that the engine/motor don’t cause issues by being meshed up while operating at different speeds.
None of the above art teaches wherein the power consumption is determined based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.
However, Ikedaya teaches “wherein the power consumption is determined based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.” ([0069] teaches “On this occasion, the motor target torque in the independent motoring control is set, for example, based on the regenerative electric power or the rotation speed (the traveling speed of the vehicle 4) in the second motor 2, the charging state of the battery 5, the intended regenerative braking force, etc. Thus, as the regenerative electric power increases, the motor 1 is driven at a higher speed to consume a larger amount of electric power. Accordingly, suitable magnitude of a regenerative braking force is generated even when the battery 5 cannot be charged at all.” (Emphasis added). This section of Ikedaya teaches implicitly that the system adjusts the power consumed in a motoring operation based on the charging level of the battery/limit of the charging and the amount of expected charging power from regenerative braking. The more braking generated while the battery is more charged, results in a more extreme motoring of the engine in order to “consume a larger amount of electrical power.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota, Hee, and Tabata with Ikedaya; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles and regenerative braking systems, with some form of motoring. As established by [0069] of Ikedaya the motoring of the engine through the regenerative braking/battery discharge prevents the battery from charging, and ensures that an overcharge situation does not occur. [0005] and [0048] both teach of the dangers of overcharging a battery and have charge determination devices to see how charged a battery is; this data helps inform how much battery is wasted to ensure an overcharge event does not occur.
Regarding claim 8, Murota teaches a hybrid electric vehicle comprising: a first motor directly connected to an engine; (Fig. 2, items 2 and 3; and [0025] teach a first motor connected to an engine)
a second motor (Fig. 2, item 5 and [0025] teach a second motor)
; and
a controller configured to: ([0048] teaches a processor which can control the system via instructions)
determine an expected charging power that is expected ([0052] teaches determining an expected power supply from regenerative braking) when ([0049]-[0050], Abstract, and Fig. 1 item 102; teach power regeneration by the second motor generator)
discharge a battery by idling the engine with the first motor (Fig. 1, Fig 3, and at least [0076]-[0080] teach a motoring of the engine by a first motor in the event that the battery will be overcharged by the regeneration of power by the second motor)
wherein the controller is further configured to determiner an operating point of the first motor for the idling of the engine when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than the charging limit power, ([0051]-[0053] teaches determining an operating point of a first motor to ensure that the consumed power exceeds the regenerative charging power)
wherein the controller is further configured to determine the operating point of the first motor includes determining the operating point of the first motor to consume power by the first motor, ([0049]-[0053] teaches determining a power consumption value for the motor generator to motor the engine so that the system consumes the correct amount of regenerative power) and
.
Murota does not teach directly connected to a transmission input terminal, and an engine clutch connected to an engine shaft and the second motor; open the engine clutch when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than a battery charging limit power; a target creep torque is generated; while the engine clutch is open; and generating the target creep torque through the regenerative braking of the second motor; and wherein the controller is further configured to determine the power consumption based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.
However, Hee teaches “directly connected to a transmission input terminal,” (Fig. 1, items 20-30 and Page 1 highlight 1; teach a drive motor and transmission directly in line) and “an engine clutch connected to an engine shaft and the second motor;” (Fig. 1, item 50; and Page 1, highlight 1; teach a clutch connecting the engine and a drive motor) “a target creep torque is generated;” (Page 1, highlight 2; teaches a determined creep torque being generated by the system) and “generating the target creep torque through the regenerative braking of the second motor.”(Page 1, highlight 2; teaches the creep torque being a subset of the regenerative braking determined by the vehicle system)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota and Hee; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of hybrid vehicles, including generating power through regenerative braking mechanisms. The use of said regenerative braking allows for the hybrid vehicle to recharge its batteries as it travels though reversing the motor instead of using traditional friction brakes. The use of a transmission and clutch would be obvious to try and are well understood ways to make a hybrid vehicle. These may be TMED, PHEV, Series, parallel, or other configurations that are well known and would be obvious to try in the art. Regarding the generation of a creep torque via the regenerative braking as Hee explains without creep torque the feeling of stopping a hybrid or electric vehicle can feel unnatural as the vehicle does not creep forward. Therefore the creep is needed to put a driver at ease. This system of using the regenerative braking to make said creep torque prevents the vehicle from using too much battery power and would allow for a more optimum energy usage. Hee explains ways to improve energy consumption levels during creep torque and ensure that the vehicle operates as efficiently as possible while regeneratively braking and generating creep torque.
Neither Murota nor Hee teach open the engine clutch when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than a battery charging limit power; and while the engine clutch is open; and wherein the controller is further configured to determine the power consumption based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.
However, Tabata teaches “open the engine clutch when the expected charging power is equal to or greater than a battery charging limit power” ([0058]-[0059] teaches opening the clutch that connects the engine to the motor system. By opening this clutch the engine is not rotating the motor and in effect charging the battery. This is determined based on the charged state of the system, [0056]) and “while the engine clutch is open;” ([0062] teaches that the clutch connecting a second motor and an engine is open during operation, this allows for the second motor and the engine to operate at different speeds)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota and Hee with Tabata; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles. This control includes clutches, and other mechanical/electrical linkages. As Tabata teaches in its background creep torque needs to be controlled in electric vehicles in order to ensure that energy is not wasted as the vehicle slows down. In [0012] Tabata teaches how the creep torque may be generated via a motor acting as a regenerative braking system. By opening the clutch between the motor and the engine the system ensures that excessive energy is not wasted and that the engine/motor don’t cause issues by being meshed up while operating at different speeds.
None of the above art teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the power consumption based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.
However, Ikedaya teaches “wherein the controller is further configured to determine the power consumption based on a difference between the expected charging power and the battery charging limit power.” ([0069] teaches “On this occasion, the motor target torque in the independent motoring control is set, for example, based on the regenerative electric power or the rotation speed (the traveling speed of the vehicle 4) in the second motor 2, the charging state of the battery 5, the intended regenerative braking force, etc. Thus, as the regenerative electric power increases, the motor 1 is driven at a higher speed to consume a larger amount of electric power. Accordingly, suitable magnitude of a regenerative braking force is generated even when the battery 5 cannot be charged at all.” (Emphasis added). This section of Ikedaya teaches implicitly that the system adjusts the power consumed in a motoring operation based on the charging level of the battery/limit of the charging and the amount of expected charging power from regenerative braking. The more braking generated while the battery is more charged, results in a more extreme motoring of the engine in order to “consume a larger amount of electrical power.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota, Hee, and Tabata with Ikedaya; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles and regenerative braking systems, with some form of motoring. As established by [0069] of Ikedaya the motoring of the engine through the regenerative braking/battery discharge prevents the battery from charging, and ensures that an overcharge situation does not occur. [0005] and [0048] both teach of the dangers of overcharging a battery and have charge determination devices to see how charged a battery is; this data helps inform how much battery is wasted to ensure an overcharge event does not occur.
Regarding claim 9, Murota teaches the hybrid electric vehicle of claim 8, wherein when the expected charging power is less than a battery charging limit power, the controller is configured to control the first motor to not idle the engine. (Fig. 1 Steps 102-105, looping, and [0082]-[0088], and [0050]-[0053] teach that the system may use the regenerative braking power to charge the battery in a case where the battery is not reaching the charging limit)
Regarding claim 10, Murota teaches the hybrid electric vehicle of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to control the first motor to idle the engine (Fig. 1, Fig 3, and at least [0076]-[0080] teach a motoring of the engine by a first motor in the event that the battery will be overcharged by the regeneration of power by the second motor)
Murota does not teach in a state where a fuel injection of the engine is prohibited.
However, Ikedaya teaches “in a state where a fuel injection of the engine is prohibited.” ([0036] teaches motoring of the engine without fuel being injected)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota, Hee, and Tabata with Ikedaya; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles and regenerative braking systems, with some form of motoring. By motoring the engine without using fuel, as taught by Ikedaya, two objectives are achieved. Firstly there is a fuel savings that results from the systems not burning the fuel, Secondly the system keeps cooler as there is no burning fuel, which allows for more temperature control. As taught in [0036] based on the amount of regenerative torque generated by the motor it may become unnecessary to use fuel to drive the engine and this results in a system that does not need such firing.
Regarding claim 15, Murota teaches the hybrid electric vehicle of claim 8, wherein the first motor is directly connected to the engine shaft. (Fig. 2, item 6, and [0026] teach the first motor being directly connected to the engine shaft)
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya in view of Soliman (US PG Pub 2009/0093336).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya does not teach wherein the target creep torque is determined based on a speed of the vehicle in a state where there is no pedal operation.
However, Soliman teaches “wherein the target creep torque is determined based on a speed of the vehicle in a state where there is no pedal operation.” ([0006], [0027], and [0038] teach a determination of vehicle creep torque based on the speed of the vehicle and the actuation status of the brake and accelerator pedals)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya with Soliman; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles and the determination of torques in the system. Creep torque is produced in the event of no pedal operation when an ICE vehicle is at or near a standstill. As taught in [0006] of Soliman the driver expects creep to occur in that exact situation. By ensuring that the hybrid creep control occurs in a similar situation to an ICE vehicle the driver will feel at ease and the vehicle will behave as expected.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya teaches the hybrid electric vehicle of claim 8.
The combination of Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya does not teach wherein the target creep torque is determined based on a speed of the vehicle in a state where there is no pedal operation.
However, Soliman teaches “wherein the target creep torque is determined based on a speed of the vehicle in a state where there is no pedal operation.” ([0006], [0027], and [0038] teach a determination of vehicle creep torque based on the speed of the vehicle and the actuation status of the brake and accelerator pedals)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya with Soliman; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles and the determination of torques in the system. Creep torque is produced in the event of no pedal operation when an ICE vehicle is at or near a standstill. As taught in [0006] of Soliman the driver expects creep to occur in that exact situation. By ensuring that the hybrid creep control occurs in a similar situation to an ICE vehicle the driver will feel at ease and the vehicle will behave as expected.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya in view of Tahara (US PG Pub 2006/0152180).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya teaches the hybrid electric vehicle of claim 8.
The combination of Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya does not teach wherein the first motor is connected to the engine shaft via a pulley and a belt.
However, Tahara teaches “wherein the first motor is connected to the engine shaft via a pulley and a belt.” (Fig. 1, items 10, 11, and 12; and [0056] teach a generator connected to and engine of a hybrid vehicle via a series of belts and pulleys)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Murota, Hee, Tabata, and Ikedaya in view of Tahara; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hybrid vehicles, and their various engine setups. The use of belts and pulleys would be obvious to try as it is well known in the art. The diagram for Hee shows a similar setup but fails to explicitly teach it as belts and pulleys. As taught in [0491] of Tahara the belt allows for a transfer of power between a generator and an engine that are not in line with each other. This is advantageous for space saving designs and ensuring that the drive system fits within the frame of a vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nissato (US PG Pub 2013/0030638) teaches a hybrid vehicle is provided in which after a determination is made as to whether the remaining capacity is higher than a first threshold value, any one of a first running mode, a second running mode, and a third running mode is selected depending on first speed, second speed, or third speed so that the vehicle runs in the mode, whereby the vehicle can run by easily selecting an appropriate series hybrid mode or an appropriate parallel hybrid mode in each range depending on whether the remaining capacity is higher than the first threshold value, and running control can be made stable and easy.
Ichioka (US PG Pub 2012/0101676) teaches a control apparatus for a hybrid vehicle provided with an engine and an electric motor serving as a vehicle drive power source, a power transmitting system for transmitting a drive force of said vehicle drive power source to a drive wheel, an electric-energy storage device for storing an electric energy to be supplied to said electric motor, and a lubricant supply device which is operatively connected to said engine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665