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 Application Number 18/410,131 filed on 01/11/2024.
• Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 01/23/2026.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/410,131 filed on 01/11/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026, 01/11/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US20110246008A1) in view of Sadakata (US20210332861A1), further in view of Iwasaki (US20150337958A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Yoshida teaches:
A driving system for a vehicle, comprising: an engine including a fuel injection valve; an electric motor coupled to wheels; a hydraulic clutch configured to connect and disconnect the engine to and from the motor; a hydraulic pressure sensor configured to detect a hydraulic pressure of the clutch; ( Yoshida, abstract, “A control device controlling a hybrid vehicle drive apparatus that includes an internal combustion engine, a rotary electric machine drivingly connected to a wheel and a clutch selectively drivingly connecting the internal combustion engine with the rotary electric machine”, and para[30], “the first clutch CL1 is a friction engagement element that is structured so as to be engaged or released by a hydraulic pressure supplied thereto.”, and para[59], “The first clutch CL1 may be structured to have a hydraulic pressure sensor”)
and a controller configured to selectively execute any one of a motor travel mode in which the motor is activated and the engine is stopped, and an engine travel mode in which at least the engine is activated,( Yoshida, para[68], “The mode control unit 46 calculates the operation modes of the sources of driving force… the electric drive mode of running by using only the rotary electric machine MG as a source of driving force and the parallel mode of running by using at least the engine E as a source of driving force are provided as the operation modes”)
wherein in a startup of the engine accompanying a change of a travel mode from the motor travel mode to the engine travel mode: ( Yoshida, para[68], “When the operation mode is changed from the electric drive mode to the parallel mode, a parallel transition mode is temporarily established as an operation mode in which control is performed to shift the mode from the electric drive mode to the parallel mode.”)
the controller causes the clutch to transition from a disconnected state to a connected state, ( Yoshida, para[61], “The lock-up clutch control unit 45 determines a target state of whether to engage or to release the lock-up clutch LC”)
and as a result of the determination, when the clutch is confirmed to be in a predetermined connection initial state, the controller causes the fuel injection valve to inject fuel. ( Yoshida, para[103], “the mode control unit 46 determines that the first clutch CL1 is fully engaged… The engine control unit 41 starts supplying the fuel to the engine E via the fuel supply device 35, and starts the ignition of the fuel supplied to the engine E via the ignition coil”)
Yoshida does not explicitly teach, but Sadakata teaches:
the controller determines the connected state of the clutch based on the hydraulic pressure detected by the hydraulic pressure sensor, ( Sadakata, para[90], “whether the third friction engagement element 22 c is being engaged is determined based on the detection signal from the third engagement hydraulic pressure sensor”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device from Yoshida to include these above teachings from Sadakata in order to include the controller determines the connected state of the clutch based on the hydraulic pressure detected by the hydraulic pressure sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the starting responsiveness of the vehicle can be improved”( Sadakata, Description).
Yoshida does not explicitly teach, but Iwasaki teaches:
wherein the predetermined connection initial state is a state in which a clearance between clutch plates of the clutch has decreased to a predetermined value that is larger than zero. ( Iwasaki, para[07], “the pistons 550 and 560 move forward against the biasing force of the return spring 540 until the clearance adjusting piston 560 reaches an end of the stroke, and the clutch clearance is accordingly reduced. Thus, a so-called small clearance state can be obtained.”, and para[70], “and the clutch clearance becomes zero or an extremely small value. Thus, a so-called small clearance state is obtained”) Examiner note: Iwasaki teaches the predetermined connection initial state of a so-called “small clearance state” is a state in which a clearance between clutch plates has decreased to a predetermined value (when clearance adjusting piston 560 reaches an end of the stroke) and clutch clearance becomes an extremely small value that is larger than zero.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device from Yoshida to include these above teachings from Iwasaki in order to include wherein the predetermined connection initial state is a state in which a clearance between clutch plates of the clutch has decreased to a predetermined value that is larger than zero. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “improvement in the fuel consumption performance of the engine and a reduction the power consumption of an electric motor in a hybrid vehicle”( Iwasaki, Description).
Regarding claim 9:
Yoshida in view of Sadakata and Iwasaki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida does not explicitly teach, but Sadakata teaches:
The driving system of claim 1, wherein a clutch hydraulic pressure set lower than a connecting hydraulic pressure of the clutch is supplied to the clutch, and when the clutch hydraulic pressure rises instantly, the controller determines that the clutch has reached the predetermined connection initial state.( Sadakata, para[90], “whether the third friction engagement element 22 c is being engaged is determined based on the detection signal from the third engagement hydraulic pressure sensor 10 c and, when the detection value is equal to or higher than a predetermined pressure, it is determined that the third friction engagement element 22 c is being engaged”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device from Yoshida to include these above teachings from Sadakata in order to include wherein a clutch hydraulic pressure set lower than a connecting hydraulic pressure of the clutch is supplied to the clutch, and when the clutch hydraulic pressure rises instantly, the controller determines that the clutch has reach the zero-clearance state. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the starting responsiveness of the vehicle can be improved”( Sadakata, Description).
Regarding claim 10:
Yoshida in view of Sadakata and Iwasaki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Yoshida does not explicitly teach, but Sadakata teaches:
The driving system of claim 9, wherein when the clutch hydraulic pressure set lower than the connecting hydraulic pressure of the clutch is supplied to the clutch, and when the controller determines that the clutch has reached the predetermined connection initial state, the controller gradually increases the clutch hydraulic pressure to a target hydraulic pressure set lower than the connecting hydraulic pressure.( Sadakata, Fig.7 and para[77], “the hydraulic pressure starts increasing at time t1, which is approximately 0.7 seconds later. Then, after becoming a constant value, the hydraulic pressure rises sharply again at time t2”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device from Yoshida to include these above teachings from Sadakata in order to include wherein a clutch hydraulic pressure set lower than the connecting hydraulic pressure of the clutch is supplied to the clutch, and when the controller determines that the clutch has reached the zero-clearance state, the controller gradually increases the clutch hydraulic pressure to a target hydraulic pressure set lower than the connecting hydraulic pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the starting responsiveness of the vehicle can be improved”( Sadakata, Description).
Regarding claim 11:
Yoshida in view of Sadakata and Iwasaki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Yoshida teaches:
The driving system of claim 10, wherein when a difference between an engine speed and a motor rotational speed is below a predetermined value, (Yoshida, para[88], “After a differential rotational speed ΔW that is the difference between the rotational speed of the engine E and the rotational speed of the rotary electric machine MG reaches a predetermined value ΔW1 or less”)
the controller increases the clutch hydraulic pressure to the connecting hydraulic pressure. ( Yoshida, para[56], “supplies a hydraulic pressure equivalent to the target hydraulic pressure to the first clutch CL1”)
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US20110246008A1) in view of Sadakata (US20210332861A1), further in view of Iwasaki (US20150337958A1) and Miyaura (US20100319444A1).
Regarding claim 3:
Yoshida in view of Sadakata, Iwasaki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida teaches:
The driving system of claim 1, wherein the engine further includes a spark plug configured to ignite a mixture gas containing fuel injected from the fuel injection valve and air, ( Yoshida, para[30], “a spark-ignition engine such as a gasoline engine”, para[42], “ ignition coil 36 for firing a spark plug arranged in the combustion chamber, a throttle valve adjusting an intake air volume that is an amount of air drawn into the combustion chamber, actuators adjusting open/close timing and lift amounts of intake and exhaust valves in the combustion chamber”
Yoshida does not explicitly teach, but Miyaura teaches:
and wherein in a startup of the engine, the controller causes the spark plug to ignite the mixture gas after a predetermined period of time passes from the fuel injection by the fuel injection valve. (Miyaura, para[04], “ignition of fuel injected from each fuel injection valve occurs a certain time after the injection, that is, there is a so-called ignition delay before the injected fuel is ignited.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device from Yoshida to include these above teachings from Miyaura in order to include wherein in a startup of the engine, the controller causes the spark plug to ignite the mixture gas after a predetermined period of time passes from the fuel injection by the fuel injection valve. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “improve the output performance ”( Miyaura, Description).
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US20110246008A1) in view of Sadakata (US20210332861A1), further in view of and Iwasaki (US20150337958A1), Miyaura (US20100319444A1) and Nakano (US20200298817A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Yoshida in view of Sadakata, Iwasaki and Miyaura, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Yoshida in view of Sadakata. Iwasaki and Miyaura does not explicitly teach, but Nakano teaches:
The driving system of claim 3, wherein the fuel injection valve is one of a plurality of fuel injection valves and the spark plug is one of a plurality of spark plugs, wherein the engine includes a plurality of cylinders, each provided with a respective one of each plurality of fuel injection valves and spark plugs, and wherein in the startup of the engine, the controller causes, in a stop-period expansion-stroke cylinder which is one of the cylinders that stopped in expansion stroke, the fuel injection valve to perform the fuel injection and the spark plug to perform ignition first before the other cylinders. ( Nakano, para[28], “the engine 10 is provided with a fuel injection valve 41 in correspondence with each cylinder 30. Each cylinder 30 includes an ignition device 42 that ignites, with spark discharge, air-fuel mixture of the intake air drawn in through the intake passage 35 and the fuel injected by the fuel injection valve 41.”, para[27], “the engine 10 is a V6 engine with six cylinders”, para[34], “In the first start mode, when the switching from the first travel mode to the second travel mode is requested, the transmission of torque from the M/G 15 through the clutch 14 to the crankshaft 33 (i.e., increase in clutch hydraulic pressure to start cranking) is commanded. In addition to this command, fuel is injected into the expansion stroke stopped cylinder.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device from Yoshida in view of Sadakata, Iwasaki and Miyaura to include these above teachings from Nakano in order to include wherein the fuel injection valve is one of a plurality of fuel injection valves and the spark plug is one of a plurality of spark plugs, wherein the engine includes a plurality of cylinders, each provided with a respective one of each plurality of fuel injection valves and spark plugs, and wherein in the startup of the engine, the controller causes, in a stop-period expansion-stroke cylinder which is one of the cylinders that stopped in expansion stroke, the fuel injection valve to perform the fuel injection and the spark plug to perform ignition first before the other cylinders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “ the startability does not worsen”( Nakano, Description).
Regarding claim 5:
Yoshida in view of Sadakata and Iwasaki, Miyaura, Nakano, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Yoshida in view of Sadakata, Iwasaki and Miyaura does not explicitly teach, but Nakano teaches:
The driving system of claim 4, wherein in the stop-period expansion-stroke cylinder, the controller causes the fuel injection valve to perform a plurality of fuel injections and then causes the spark plug to perform a plurality of ignitions. ( Nakano, para[28], “the engine 10 is provided with a fuel injection valve 41 in correspondence with each cylinder 30. Each cylinder 30 includes an ignition device 42 that ignites, with spark discharge, air-fuel mixture of the intake air drawn in through the intake passage 35 and the fuel injected by the fuel injection valve 41.”, para[27], “the engine 10 is a V6 engine with six cylinders”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device from Yoshida in view of Sadakata, Iwasaki and Miyaura to include these above teachings from Nakano in order to include wherein in the stop-period expansion-stroke cylinder, the controller causes the fuel injection valve to perform a plurality of fuel injections and then causes the spark plug to perform a plurality of ignitions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “ the startability does not worsen”( Nakano, Description).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103. Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/07/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 (See applicant’s response, page 5, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights