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 communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Withdrawn from consideration:
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (), hereinafter “” in view of Takaota et al. (JP 2002147271), hereinafter “”
Regarding Claim
disclose:
A hybrid electric vehicle comprising:
an engine ();
a motor () directly connected to the engine (1) (¶¶); and
a control unit () configured to:
determine, when an engine stop request is generated, whether a first condition for stopping the engine and a second condition for recovering an engine rotational energy by of the motor are satisfied (¶¶) (),
apply, when the first condition and the second condition are satisfied, a negative torque to the motor, wherein the negative torque is determined based on a rotational speed of the engine and a predetermined first target rotational speed, (¶¶) ()
based on the rotational speed of the engine apply a feedback torque for satisfying a target behavior of the engine to the motor (¶¶“”)
fail to explicitly disclose:
a rotational speed of the engine determined by a detection result of at least one sensor.
wherein the control unit is configured to apply the feedback torque based on a predetermined target angular acceleration and a present angular acceleration, the predetermined target angular acceleration being set in relation to the rotational speed of the engine.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Takaota et al. teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of utilizing to determine rotational speed of the engine in order to provide an engine speed to a controller wherein the control unit is configured to apply the feedback torque based on a predetermined target angular acceleration and a present angular acceleration, the predetermined target angular acceleration being set in relation to the rotational speed of the engine See at least ¶0061 “rotational speed sensor 82”; ¶¶0085-0087; “the smoothing coefficient stc increases, and the rate of change of the torque command stm decreases accordingly. Therefore, in the operation mode in which the torque reactive force of the motor generator 16 acts on the engine 14, such as the "ETC mode", the fluctuation of the load acting on the engine 14 due to the change of the motor torque is reduced, and the occurrence of engine stall is suppressed. A plurality of the smoothing constants stc are set according to the driving state such as the traveling mode and the acceleration / deceleration,” ; “when the engine speed Ne becomes equal to or lower than the lower limit NESTP, 1 is added to the counter cnestp … smoothing coefficient stc is increased in accordance with the value of the counter cnstp to decrease the rate of change of the torque command stm … The smoothing constant stc corresponds to a predetermined control element that is corrected so that an engine stall is less likely to occur”. to suppress the occurrence of an engine stall due to a sudden change in the motor torque. See at least ¶¶0061, 0085-0087
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Takaota et al. to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize the in to suppress the occurrence of an engine stall due to a sudden change in the motor torque. See at least ¶¶0061, 0085-0087, 0115; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim
disclose:
A hybrid electric vehicle comprising:
an engine ();
a motor () directly connected to the engine (1) (¶¶); and
a control unit () configured to:
determine, when an engine stop request is generated, whether a first condition for stopping the engine and a second condition for recovering an engine rotational energy by of the motor are satisfied (¶¶) (),
apply, when the first condition and the second condition are satisfied, a negative torque to the motor, wherein the negative torque is determined based on a rotational speed of the engine and a predetermined first target rotational speed, (¶¶) ()
based on the rotational speed of the engine apply a feedback torque for satisfying a target behavior of the engine to the motor (¶¶: “” )
wherein when the rotational speed of the engine is less than a predetermined second target rotational speed, the control unit is configured to apply a positive torque to the motor so that the rotational speed of the engine reaches the predetermined second target rotational speed. (¶¶; “”)
fail to explicitly disclose:
a rotational speed of the engine determined by a detection result of at least one sensor.
wherein the control unit is configured to apply the feedback torque based on a predetermined target angular acceleration and a present angular acceleration, the predetermined target angular acceleration being set in relation to the rotational speed of the engine.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Takaota et al. teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of utilizing to determine rotational speed of the engine in order to provide an engine speed to a controller wherein the control unit is configured to apply the feedback torque based on a predetermined target angular acceleration and a present angular acceleration, the predetermined target angular acceleration being set in relation to the rotational speed of the engine See at least ¶0061 “rotational speed sensor 82”; ¶¶0085-0087; “the smoothing coefficient stc increases, and the rate of change of the torque command stm decreases accordingly. Therefore, in the operation mode in which the torque reactive force of the motor generator 16 acts on the engine 14, such as the "ETC mode", the fluctuation of the load acting on the engine 14 due to the change of the motor torque is reduced, and the occurrence of engine stall is suppressed. A plurality of the smoothing constants stc are set according to the driving state such as the traveling mode and the acceleration / deceleration,”; “when the engine speed Ne becomes equal to or lower than the lower limit NESTP, 1 is added to the counter cnestp … smoothing coefficient stc is increased in accordance with the value of the counter cnstp to decrease the rate of change of the torque command stm … The smoothing constant stc corresponds to a predetermined control element that is corrected so that an engine stall is less likely to occur”. to suppress the occurrence of an engine stall due to a sudden change in the motor torque. See at least ¶¶0061, 0085-0087
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Takaota et al. to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize the in to suppress the occurrence of an engine stall due to a sudden change in the motor torque. See at least ¶¶0061, 0085-0087, 0115; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and Takaota et al. as applied above, and further in view of by (JP 2023076335 A), hereinafter “”
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one sensor includes a first sensor configured to detect a position of a rotor of the motor, and the rotational speed of the engine is determined based on a detection result of the first sensor
However, the combination of references disclose:
at least one sensor includes a first sensor configured to detect a position of a rotor of the motor, and the rotational speed of the engine is determined based on a detection result of a sensor (: ¶¶) “”
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to provide redundancy. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to provide redundancy. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the at least one sensor includes a second sensor () configured to detect rotation of a crankshaft of the engine, and the rotational speed of the engine is determined based on a detection result of the second sensor (). See at least Takaota et al.: ¶0061
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the negative torque is determined to correspond to an absolute value of a difference between the rotational speed of the engine and a target rotational speed.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to enhance durability. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to enhance durability. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the negative torque is determined by considering at least one of a predetermined maximum value or a predetermined variance limit per hour (: ¶¶).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein whether the first condition is satisfied is determined based on at least one of an engine clutch state, a powertrain mode, or whether a fuel injection request is generated
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to improve responsiveness. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to improve responsiveness. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein whether the second condition is satisfied is determined based on at least one of the rotational speed of the engine, a battery state, or whether the at least one sensor is normally operating
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to compensate for reactive torque. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to compensate for reactive torque. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
:
… The second condition is on the engine 110 rotational energy recovery of the first motor 120 considering the engine 110, the battery protection, or the energy recovery efficiency, and when the stop-control-entry determining unit 310 does not satisfy the second condition, it is considered that the rotational energy recovery is impossible or inappropriate, so thus the engine-stop control is not entered. See Instant PgPub: ¶
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
disclose:
A hybrid electric vehicle comprising:
an engine ();
a motor () directly connected to the engine () (¶¶); and
a control unit () configured to:
determine, when an engine stop request is generated, whether a first condition for stopped the engine (¶¶) and a second condition for an engine rotational energy recovery of the motor are satisfied (¶¶),
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action 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. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights