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 Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on August 20, 2025. Claims 1-6 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 3 and 6 have been amended and claims 7 and 8 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 5-10 filed on August 20, 2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim interpretation, the amendments have been accepted by the examiner which address this means plus function interpretation. Therefore, the interpretation for the “regenerative braking device” is moot and the examiner withdraws the interpretation from consideration.
With respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection for claims 3-5, the amendments resolve this indefinite condition and have been accepted by the examiner. Therefore, the indefinite rejections to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102/103, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, the previously applied prior art does not appear to disclose the amended features. However, the scope has changed requiring new search and consideration. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,) are clearly defined in the newly found prior art and a new rejection has been made under 35 USC 103 as presented below, in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the new limitations from the amended claims are not unique when considered against relevant prior art.
The specific limitations added in claims 7 and 8 for “guiding a driver to release an accelerator” are defined in the specification and accepted for consideration, however the previously cited relevant art from Oguri and can be applied to these claimed limitations, as mapped below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al., US2022/0118980A1 Hereinafter “Gupta” in view of Kitajima et al US2003/0034653A1 Hereinafter “Kitajima”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Gupta discloses a controller (118) for a vehicle (101):
wherein the vehicle includes a power unit (103) coupled to wheels,
the power unit includes:
an engine (102) configured to generate force by combustion of a fuel; See [0029] and Fig.1.
a generator (110) configured to generate electricity by force transmitted from the wheels, See [0050] and Fig. 3B.
the controller(118) includes processing circuitry(120), the processing circuitry is configured to execute:
a deceleration assist control that increases an amount of regenerative electricity generation by the generator to increase a braking torque generated by the power unit during a deceleration of the vehicle when the vehicle is predicted to decelerate, compared to when the vehicle is not predicted to decelerate; In [0044], "The
powertrain capability includes one or more of: […] the vehicle's predicted operation when the engine is turned on/off with motor/generator assistance, etc. In some examples, whether to apply the engine-off coasting is determined based on a tradeoff between the vehicle's kinetic energy and electric energy in a way that optimizes both the overall system energy loss (such as engine or service braking modes) and powertrain efficiency, while the vehicle meets the performance constraints.” Also in [0050], “the controller determines (1) cruise control reference speed, (2) power split between the engine and the electric machine, and (3) timing of the engine-off coasting, which is when the engine is to be deactivated and disengaged, during the predicted coasting opportunity. […] the controller deactivates and disengages the engine at a start of the coasting opportunity. In some examples, the controller commands an inverter of the electric machine to propel or regenerate in order to convert electric energy to kinetic energy, and vice versa"
While Gupta’s device has regenerative braking of the applicant’s invention, they do not explicitly disclose the limitation for regenerative control during a fuel cutoff process. However, Kitajima teaches a braking torque increase prohibition process that prohibits an increase in the braking torque in the deceleration assist control when in response to a fuel cutoff process of the engine is being prohibited. See Fig.3 and [0061-0067], “In step S076, it is determined whether the final assist command value ASTPWRF is equal to or lower than "0". If the determination result is "YES", the process proceeds to the cruise mode in step S077, and the control is terminated. In the cruise mode, the motor M is not driven, and the vehicle runs by means of the driving force from the engine E. Accordingly, regenerative operation by the motor M is not carried out. If the determination result in step S076 is "NO", then the control is terminated.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Gupta’s device with the fuel cutoff limitations disclosed in Kitajima with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve driver comfort. See Kitajima, [0014].
Regarding Claim 3, Gupta discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
The controller for the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute a gradual change process that gradually decreases an increase amount of the braking torque by the deceleration assist control toward 0 when the fuel cutoff process is prohibited while the braking torque is being increased by the deceleration assist control. See [0061-0062] controller optimization techniques to preserve fuel economy and/or battery SOC and Gupta Fig. 4G line (400) shows gradual changes in motor/generator power demand over a distance.
Regarding Claim 4, Gupta discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 3:
The controller for the vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to end the gradual change process when the increase amount of the braking torque by the deceleration assist control decreases to 0. In [0066], “In the known process 902, when the drive demand is negative and the battery SOC is not saturated, the electric machine is allowed to initiate regenerative braking. The engine compensates for the difference in driver demand, even resulting in positive engine work, and may result in lowering speed increases.”
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Kitajima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokoi et al (US2018/0216552A1), hereinafter “Yokoi”.
Regarding Claim 2, Gupta does not explicitly disclose the limitations below; However, Yokoi teaches the following limitations:
wherein the engine includes a filter device configured to trap particulate matter in exhaust gas, the processing circuitry is configured to prohibit the fuel cutoff process when a trapped amount of the particulate matter in the filter device exceeds a specified threshold. See [0006], a hybrid vehicle, particulate filter, and control device.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The combination of Gupta and Yokoi would yield predictable results according to the teachings of Yokoi by allowing the vehicle to perform a process to combust the particulate matter deposited on the filter, under appropriate conditions. Yokoi [0007].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Kitajima as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Morisawa et al., (US2002/0023789A1) hereinafter, “Morisawa”.
Regarding Claim 5, Gupta does not explicitly disclose the limitations below; However, Morisawa teaches the following limitation based on Claim 3:
The controller for the vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to end the gradual change process when a shift lever is operated by a driver. See Fig. 29.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The combination of Gupta and Morisawa would yield predictable results according to the teachings of Morisawa by preventing abrupt changes to the drive force of the vehicle (Morisawa Fig 14, [0152], [0154], [0157]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Kitajima, and further in view of Oguri et al (US2017/0015323A1, cited in PTO-892 mailed 5/28/2025), hereinafter “Oguri”.
Regarding Claim 7 and 8, Gupta does not disclose driver guidance in their device. However, Oguri teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the deceleration assist control includes: guiding a driver to release an accelerator in response to the vehicle being predicted to decelerate; and increasing the amount of regenerative electricity generation by the generator in response to the accelerator being released. See at least [0087], “When the vehicle is predicted to finish the deceleration at the target deceleration end position P0* (in this example, when the vehicle is predicted to stop at the stop line of the intersection PS), the support execution unit 72 first guides the driver to release the accelerator pedal at a timing at which the ecological drive can be realized. In other words, accelerator release guidance is carried out. When the driver follows the accelerator release guidance to release the accelerator pedal, the regenerative braking force (corresponding to so-called engine braking) is generated. The example represented by the solid line of FIG. 4 is an example in which the accelerator pedal is released simultaneously with the accelerator release guidance.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The combination of Gupta and Oguri would yield predictable results according to the teachings of Oguri by providing driver guidance to support an ecological drive, see Oguri [0028].
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669