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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to the objections and rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections and objections of the office action dated 04/10/2026 have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new U.S.C. 101 rejections in light of applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 9-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a hydraulic system including a controller that processes information without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
“a controller, configured to receive traveling demand information and road condition information, the controller comprising one or more processors executing instructions to perform operations comprising: a power distribution operation, configured to calculate rotation speed information and torque information corresponding to each power terminal of the powertrain according to the traveling demand information and the road condition information, wherein each power terminal comprises one or more of the drive motor, the generator, the clutch, and the transmission system; a pressure calculation operation, configured to calculate a driving pressure requirement according to the rotation speed information and the torque information from the power distribution operation; a terminal flow calculation operation, configured to calculate a cooling flow requirement of each power terminal according to the rotation speed information and the torque information from the power distribution operation and oil temperature information of the main cooling oil path; and a hydraulic coordination operation, configured to calculate a rotation speed of the first oil pump, a rotation speed of a second oil pump, an opening degree of the control element, and an opening degree of a pressure control solenoid valve according to the driving pressure requirement and the cooling flow requirement of each power terminal” in claim 9
This recitation is directed towards an abstract idea of data processing and performing calculations and data processing which are considered mental processes. The MPEP 2106.04 states “the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”.
Following the subject matter eligibility test for products and processes in MPEP 2106:
Step 1: The claim is an apparatus claim
Step 2A: The claim recites an abstract idea of mental processes.
Step 2B: The claim recites other claim limitations pertaining to the hydraulic system and vehicle, but does not integrate the abstract idea into the claimed structures.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the controller does not do anything with the calculations/processing results. While the claim also recites structural limitations pertaining to the vehicle and hydraulic system, the controller operations are not integrated into a practical application because the calculation and data processing results are not claimed to be used to do anything in particular in the claimed system. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the results of the calculations/processing are not used in any manner in the claimed system.
Applicant remedies this same issue that previously existed in original claim 17 by adding the limitation “and controlling, by the processor of the controller, cooling and driving pressure in the hydraulic system, by controlling the first oil pump to operate at the calculated rotation speed of the first oil pump, the second oil pump to operate at the calculated rotation speed of the second oil pump, the control element in each cooling branch to achieve the calculated flow rates, and the pressure control solenoid valve to achieve the calculated opening degree.”
This similar language should be included in claim to remedy this rejection.
Claims 10-16 are also rejected under U.S.C. 101 because they depend from claim 9 and fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as none of these claims use the calculations/processing results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious the combination of limitations as recited in claims 1 or 17. The dependent claims 7-8 and 18-20 are allowable because they depend from allowed claims 1 or 17.
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 Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights