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 response filed on July 21, 2025.
Claims 9-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is being handled by examiner Christine Huynh.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed July 21, 2025, with respect to the claim objection of claims 10-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claims 10-14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 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. The applicant argues that the prior arts ZHAO et al. (US 20150203106 A1) in view of Mineno et al. (JP 2015009629 A), does not teach the amended limitations “performing a first operation mode of the vehicle in which, during deceleration running of the vehicle, the lockup clutch is engaged, rigid connection is established between the internal combustion engine and the automatic transmission, and the alternator is caused to execute regenerative power generation; during the deceleration running, during the first operation mode, releasing the lockup clutch in response to a condition in which a speed of the vehicle reaches a first vehicle speed value that is set according to a deceleration rate of the vehicle”. However, upon further search and consideration, claim 9 and similar independent claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO et al. (US 20150203106 A1) in view of Mineno et al. (JP 2015009629 A) and Schulte et al. (US 20130040778 A1). See detailed rejection below.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as listed above. See detailed rejection below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO et al. (US 20150203106 A1), in view of Mineno et al. (JP 2015009629 A), which were both provided in the IDS sent on June 21, 2023, and Schulte et al. (US 20130040778 A1).
Regarding claims 9-13 and 15-16:
With respect to claims 9 and 16, Zhao teaches:
the vehicle including an internal combustion engine, an automatic transmission, a lockup clutch for rigid connection between the internal combustion engine and the automatic transmission, and an alternator provided as auxiliary equipment of the internal combustion engine and in constant driving connection to the internal combustion engine, (“The engine 14 and the M/G 18 are both capable of providing motive power for the HEV 10. The engine 14 generally represents a power source which may include an internal combustion engine such as a gasoline, diesel, or natural gas powered engine, or a fuel cell. The engine 14 generates an engine power and corresponding engine torque that is supplied to the M/G 18 when a disconnect clutch 26 between the engine 14 and the M/G 18 is at least partially engaged.” [0014], “During a regenerative braking event, the M/G may selectively apply a drag, or negative torque, to contribute to vehicle deceleration. Regenerative braking torque is more efficient when the torque converter bypass clutch 36 is locked. During a locked condition, the impeller and turbine are mechanically locked by the clutch. This locking eliminates slip between the parts thereby improving efficiency. Keeping the bypass clutch 36 locked as long as possible during deceleration allows the collection of more regenerative energy than would otherwise be possible with conventional torque converter scheduling.” [0030]), which shows the during a deceleration of a vehicle, regenerative power generation is executed when the clutch is engaged.
Zhao does not teach, but Schulte teaches:
performing a first operation mode of the vehicle in which, during deceleration running of the vehicle, the lockup clutch is engaged, rigid connection is established between the internal combustion engine and the automatic transmission, and the alternator is caused to execute regenerative power generation; (“The controller operates said first clutch to disengage the engine from the ISGM during an initial deceleration phase of the vehicle. The controller further engages the lock-up clutch during the initial deceleration phase to direct substantially all regenerative energy from the decelerating vehicle therethrough to the ISGM operating as a generate to provide the only source of electric energy to recharge the rechargeable energy storage system” [0011]).
Zhao further teaches:
during the first operation mode, releasing the lockup clutch in response to a condition in which a speed of the vehicle reaches a first vehicle speed value that is set according to a deceleration rate of the vehicle, (“Once an appropriate braking command limit is determined by the controller at either of steps 514, 516, 520, or 522, the controller may determine if the torque converter clutch will soon disengage. In at least one embodiment, this disengagement is triggered by a speed threshold. A predetermined buffer speed threshold is based upon the speed threshold at which the torque converter locking clutch will release” [0055]), which shows that the lockup clutch is released when it is triggered by a speed threshold, which is a first vehicle speed value.
However, while Zhao teaches releasing the clutch at a speed threshold, Zhao does not teach, but Schulte teaches releasing the lockup clutch in response to a condition of a speed based on vehicle deceleration (“Once the controller determines that the speed is below the threshold speed in step 309, the process proceeds to step 313. In step 313, the lock-up clutch 114 is disengaged. When the lock-up clutch 114 is disengaged, deceleration energy that would have been regenerative power is dissipated through the torque converter 108” [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Zhao’s vehicle control with Schulte’s lockup clutch and speed threshold because (“Engine management is an important aspect for increasing efficient energy usage in hybrid vehicles.” [0003]).
during the first operation mode, stopping the regenerative power generation of the alternator in response to a condition in which the speed of the vehicle reaches a second vehicle speed value that is different from the first vehicle speed value, (“If at step 524 the vehicle speed is less than the buffer speed threshold, the controller will enter into a regenerative torque blend-out procedure. At step 528 the controller calculates the deceleration rate of the vehicle. The controller may calculate at step 530 the duration of time, considering the deceleration rate, before vehicle speed decreases such that the torque converter locking clutch disengages. Based on this duration of time, the controller calculates a decay of the regenerative torque command at step 532 so that the regenerative torque diminishes to approximately zero by the time the torque converter locking clutch disengages. At the same time, the controller calculates at step 534, an increase in frictional brake resistance over duration of time so that when the regenerative torque reaches zero, the friction brakes are ramped up to replace the regenerative torque and satisfy the driver braking demand.” [0056]), which shows that at a speed value less than the speed threshold, the regenerative power generator is stopped.
In addition, Mineno teaches, (“When the vehicle M decelerates and the vehicle speed becomes the second speed (time t2; step S106), the hybrid ECU 76 terminates the regeneration control and issues a control command to the motor ECU 73, and the motor ECU 73 controls the electric motor 20 to a predetermined rotational speed a. The motor is held constant and driven (step S108). In the present embodiment, the output torque of the electric motor 20 when the electric motor 20 is driven at the predetermined rotation speed a is, for example, 50 N · m. At this time, since the hydraulic pressure for operating the transmission 50 is generated by the hydraulic pump 52a, if the brake pedal 62 is turned off temporarily, the hydraulic braking force is not applied to each wheel, and the vehicle is creeped. M runs at low speed.” See Mineno [0068]), which shows that the lockup clutch is released and the regenerative power generator is stopped when triggered by a speed threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Zhao’s vehicle control with Mineno’s stopping regenerative power at a threshold because (“the feeling of deceleration of the hybrid vehicle caused by the reduction of the driving force due to the start of the engine by the electric motor is suppressed.” See Mineno [0003]).
With respect to claim 10, Zhao in combination with Mineno and Schulte, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. The combination of Zhao, Mineno, and Schulte teaches applying a regenerative torque during deceleration running of a vehicle of claim 9. Zhao further teaches:
wherein the second vehicle speed value is set according to the deceleration rate of the vehicle; (“it is contemplated that the difference between the buffer threshold speed 416 and the speed threshold 412 may vary based on a number of vehicle operating parameters, including for example transmission gear ratio and vehicle deceleration rate. In at least one embodiment, the buffer threshold speed and the torque converter clutch open speed threshold are predetermined and stored in a lookup table and retrievable by the controller for each of a range of vehicle conditions.” [0046], “the buffer speed is a function of current vehicle speed, transmission oil temperature, and the impeller speed of the torque converter. There may be an active calculation performed to derive the buffer speed, or alternatively, a pre-stored calibration look up table may house appropriate buffer speed values based on operating parameters” [0055], “If at step 524 the vehicle speed is less than the buffer speed threshold, the controller will enter into a regenerative torque blend-out procedure. At step 528 the controller calculates the deceleration rate of the vehicle. The controller may calculate at step 530 the duration of time, considering the deceleration rate, before vehicle speed decreases such that the torque converter locking clutch disengages. Based on this duration of time, the controller calculates a decay of the regenerative torque command at step 532 so that the regenerative torque diminishes to approximately zero by the time the torque converter locking clutch disengages.” [0056]), this shows that the second vehicle speed value can be set according to the deceleration rate of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 11, Zhao in combination with Mineno and Schulte, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. The combination of Zhao, Mineno, and Schulte teaches applying a regenerative torque during deceleration running of a vehicle of claim 9. Zhao further teaches:
wherein the regenerative power generation of the alternator is stopped at a timing earlier than the release of the lockup clutch; (“During a regenerative braking event, the M/G may selectively apply a drag, or negative torque, to contribute to vehicle deceleration. Regenerative braking torque is more efficient when the torque converter bypass clutch 36 is locked. During a locked condition, the impeller and turbine are mechanically locked by the clutch. This locking eliminates slip between the parts thereby improving efficiency. Keeping the bypass clutch 36 locked as long as possible during deceleration allows the collection of more regenerative energy than would otherwise be possible with conventional torque converter scheduling. If during the deceleration, the torque converter clutch transitions from engaged to disengaged, there may be an abrupt change in the deceleration rate, causing roughness as perceived by the driver. Therefore such a transition may be performed gradually to enhance the smoothness of deceleration. Near the conclusion of a regenerative braking event as the vehicle slows to low speed or comes to a stop, the braking torque supplied by the M/G 18 must be transferred to the friction braking system to avoid a disruption in the vehicle total braking torque when the bypass clutch 36 disengages.” [0030]), which shows that regenerative power generation stopped at a timing earlier than the release of the lockup clutch, as there is perceived roughness if the clutch is disengaged.
With respect to claim 12, Zhao in combination with Mineno and Schulte, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. The combination of Zhao, Mineno, and Schulte teaches applying a regenerative torque during deceleration running of a vehicle of claim 9. Zhao further teaches:
wherein the lockup clutch is released at a timing earlier than the stop of the regenerative power generation of the alternator; (Near the conclusion of a regenerative braking event as the vehicle slows to low speed or comes to a stop, the braking torque supplied by the M/G 18 must be transferred to the friction braking system to avoid a disruption in the vehicle total braking torque when the bypass clutch 36 disengages. This transfer should be performed over a period of time to ensure smooth driving and driver satisfaction. According to the present disclosure, a regenerative torque "blend-out" may be coordinated with the torque converter bypass clutch disengaging.” [0030]), which shows that the lockup clutch release is calculated to be timed before the stop of the regenerative power generation.
With respect to claim 13, Zhao in combination with Mineno and Schulte, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. The combination of Zhao, Mineno, and Schulte teaches applying a regenerative torque during deceleration running of a vehicle of claim 10. Zhao further teaches:
wherein the first vehicle speed value or the second vehicle speed value is set higher as the deceleration rate of the vehicle becomes higher; (“Still referring to FIG. 4A, a buffer threshold profile is provided as curve 416. The buffer threshold speed 416 is based on the speed threshold 412 which determines the opening of the torque converter. The buffer threshold speed 416 is greater than the speed threshold 412 by a predetermined amount such that the vehicle speed 410 crosses the buffer threshold 416 at point 418 at a duration Δt before crossing the speed threshold 412. Time duration Δt may vary depending on the rate of vehicle deceleration. It is further contemplated that the buffer profile may be varied based on vehicle deceleration rate such that time duration Δt between point 414 and point 418 remains relatively constant for higher and lower deceleration rates. Additionally, FIG. 4A depicts a profile of buffer speed threshold 416 where the difference between speed threshold 412 is a scalar value. However it is contemplated that the difference between the buffer threshold speed 416 and the speed threshold 412 may vary based on a number of vehicle operating parameters, including for example transmission gear ratio and vehicle deceleration rate.” [0046]), where the vehicle speed threshold can be set based on the vehicle deceleration rate. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the speed threshold would be set higher when the vehicle is decelerating rapidly to allow time for regenerative power generation to prevent stalling of the engine.
With respect to claim 15, Zhao in combination with Mineno and Schulte, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. The combination of Zhao, Mineno, and Schulte teaches applying a regenerative torque during deceleration running of a vehicle of claim 9. Zhao further teaches:
wherein the first vehicle speed value or the second vehicle speed value in a brake-on state is set different from that in a brake-off state; (“The driver of vehicle 10 may additionally provide input at brake pedal 52 to create a vehicle braking demand. Depressing brake pedal 52 generates a braking input signal that is interpreted by controller 48 as a command to decelerate the vehicle.” [0026], However it is contemplated that the difference between the buffer threshold speed 416 and the speed threshold 412 may vary based on a number of vehicle operating parameters, including for example transmission gear ratio and vehicle deceleration rate.” [0046] “Referring to FIGS. 4B and 4C, various aspects of vehicle torque related to the powertrain are depicted. Curve 420 represents driver braking demand profile, which may correspond to driver brake pedal input. When the vehicle is in a regenerative braking mode, it may be beneficial to fuel economy to achieve as much braking as possible from the M/G to recover the maximum energy possible. Where possible the applied negative regenerative torque, represented by curve 422, fully satisfies driver braking demand 420. The amount of regenerative torque able to be applied may be limited by the physical capacity of the M/G. The amount of regenerative torque may vary based a number of vehicle operating conditions such as vehicle speed, transmission gear ratio, and state of charge of the battery. Curve 424 represents the powertrain regenerative torque limit, and the limit varies according to transmission gear ratio and/or vehicle speed.” [0047]), where the vehicle speed threshold can be set based on the vehicle deceleration that can be determined from a vehicle brake pedal state.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 20150203106 A1), which was provided in the IDS sent on June 21, 2023 in view of Mineno et al. (JP 2015009629 A), Schulte et al. (US 20130040778 A1), and Tamai (US 20060131085 A1).
Regarding claims 14:
With respect to claim 14, Zhao in combination with Mineno and Schulte, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. The combination of Zhao, Mineno, and Schulte teaches applying a regenerative torque during deceleration running of a vehicle of claim 10. Zhao further teaches:
wherein the vehicle comprises an air conditioner having a compressor driven by the internal combustion engine, (“Representative examples of parameters, systems, and/or components that may be directly or indirectly actuated using control logic executed by the controller include fuel injection timing, rate, and duration, throttle valve position, spark plug ignition timing (for spark-ignition engines), intake/exhaust valve timing and duration, front-end accessory drive (FEAD) components such as an alternator, air conditioning compressor…” [0022])
However, Zhao does not teach, but Tamai teaches:
wherein the first vehicle speed value or the second vehicle speed value is set higher as a refrigerant pressure of the air conditioner becomes higher, (“Regardless of which deceleration mode the control system is operating in, if the brake pedal 40 is released (i.e., no pressure applied to the brake pedal), the engine 12 is refueled instead of being stopped. The electric machine 14 is used to match the fueled engine speed. If the air-conditioning (A/C) is active, the control module 44 estimates the compressor torque contribution and compensates for the extra load in the electric machine torque.” [0026]), which shows that the torque needs to be compensated for the extra load in the electric machine torque, such as what is stated in the instant specification, (“The first speed threshold value V1 and the second speed threshold value V2 may be set higher as the refrigerant pressure of the air conditioner becomes higher. The higher the refrigerant pressure of the air conditioner, the higher the load of the internal combustion engine 1” see instant specification [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Zhao’s vehicle control with Tamai’s system for refrigerant pressure in order to (“compensates for the extra load in the electric machine torque” see Tamai [0026]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine N Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTINE NGUYEN HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662