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 response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 4/10/2026. Applicant amended claims 1-6 and 11-16. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114.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 4/10/2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
Regarding the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant argues:
Li does not teach the amended features. Li only discusses selecting among 15 operating modes for optimal power management. Li does not disclose or suggest:
a cost offset or penalty including both an SSCO and an EBCO;
detecting a steady-state period based on vehicle speed and road grade; or
applying the SSCO and EBCO to the calculated costs in response to detecting the steady-state period.
Kim does not cure Li. Kim only discusses determining a current operating mode.
The other cited references, including Dai and Boot, do not cure Li and Kim.
As to the argument that the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest “each cost offset or penalty including both (i) a steady-state cost offset (SSCO) value or penalty and (ii) an energy-based cost offset (EBCO) value or penalty,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Li discloses: a cost offset or penalty including a steady-state cost offset (SSCO) value1 (“The objective function for determining the minimum cost value min(J) is defined as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where … ƒpen is a multiplier penalty factor used to tune the weight of the electricity power change in the cost function, FICE_control is a penalty function as torque change rate to consider the controllability of engine torque, FICE_StartStop is a penalty function to consider the drivability cost of engine start-stop, Fshift is a penalty function to consider the drivability cost of a transmission shift, and Fthermal is a penalty function to consider the thermal states of the powertrain 104 to avoid overheating” ¶ 23; emphases added. “By using a cost function for drivability reduction, the supervisory control would strike a balance between fuel economy and driving comfort to decide if shift action should be taken” ¶ 26.). Summarizing, FICE_StartStop and Fshift analogize to the SSCO penalty because they constitute a cost penalty applied to an operating mode’s cost regarding switching away from the current mode (i.e., by considering the costs of starting/stopping an engine and performing a transmission shift).
Continuing, Kim teaches: a cost offset or penalty including an energy-based cost offset (EBCO) value or penalty (An “integrated power cost difference ΣΔP” is calculated as follows: ΣΔP=ΣΔP(t-1)+ΔP,” wherein ΔP represents “a power cost difference … (ΔP=Pcost-command−Pcost-j)” — ¶ 30; emphasis added. “The new value for the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is compared to a power cost threshold (Threshold) (370), and if less than the power cost threshold (370)(0), this iteration ends (390). If the new value for the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is equal to or greater than the power cost threshold (370)(1), the engine is commanded to transition to the previously non-commanded engine state that has an integrated power cost difference ΣΔP that is less than the power cost associated with the presently commanded one of the engine states (380) …. As such, the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP generated by the engine state stabilization process 300 provides a capability to stabilize engine state transitions based upon time-integrated power, or energy” ¶ 31; see also ¶¶ 26, 32 and Table 1.). Here, the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP analogizes to the EBCO value because it is an offset representing an energy cost difference between a current mode and a candidate mode over time. That is, the power cost difference ΣΔP signifies an accumulated value over time in which a candidate mode has less energy cost than a current commanded mode. The power cost difference ΣΔP thereby offsets the trend towards stabilization favoring the current operating mode such that a system transitions to a lower-cost mode when appropriate.
As to the remainder of the arguments, they have been fully 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.
SPECIFICATION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
PGPUB [0033]: “stead-state” is a typo of “steady-state”.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 11, 13 and 16 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claims 1 and 11, the limitation “detect, based on vehicle speed and road grade a steady-state period” is missing a comma. Examiner suggests: “detect, based on vehicle speed and road grade, a steady-state period”.
As to claims 3 and 13, the limitation of “where CRB and OB represent raw and offset or penalty costs of operating mode B and CRC, respectively, where operating mode B represents the optimal operating mode considering only the SSCO values or penalties, and OC represent raw and offset or penalty costs of operating mode C, respectively” is informal. Namely, the placement of the amended language splits the provided definitions and in turn generates an awkwardly phrased clause which is difficult to parse. Examiner suggests the following placement: “where CRB and OB represent raw and offset or penalty costs of operating mode B, respectively, where operating mode B represents the optimal operating mode considering only the SSCO values or penalties, and CRC and OC represent raw and offset or penalty costs of operating mode C, respectively.”
As to claims 6 and 16, claim element “the steady-state periods” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a control system configured to” in claim 1 (with dependent claims 2–10).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: processor(s) (PGPUB, ¶ 34.)
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1 and 11, the recitation “steady-state cost offset (SSCO) value or penalty” is vague and indefinite. The Specification neither defines this term nor provides a concrete discussion as to what an SSCO value/penalty entails or represents. The context of the specification suggests that the SSCO is an offset or penalty that represents an inertia of the system to maintain a current mode against transitioning to another mode (see ¶¶ 16, 29-30, 33). However, the specification also states that each offset or penalty includes both an SSCO and an EBCO (¶ 24) and then treats the offsets without γ as “considering only the SSCO values or penalties” (¶ 29). Under this second reading, an SSCO is any offset or penalty that tis not an EBCO. These two readings differ substantially in scope, and the specification does not indicate which is intended. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner will follow the first interpretation that the SSCO is an offset or penalty that represents an inertia of the system to maintain a current mode against transitioning to another mode.
As to claims 4 and 14:
Claims 3 and 13 define OB and OC as offset/penalty costs but claims 4 and 14 go on to define them as states. The specification does not clarify this issue. Accordingly, it is unclear whether OB and OC are offset/penalty costs or states.
The claim does not say what “n” is, how F relates to f(n), or how F depends on “a particular operating mode”. The specification at PGPUB ¶ 30 repeats the claim language without explanation. Accordingly, it is unclear what is being claimed.
As to claims 9 and 19, “extended steady-state period” constitutes a relative term of degree with no reference. The specification only gives examples (e.g., “operating the powertrain in a cruise control mode with a set vehicle speed and minimal or no changes in road grade” PGPUB ¶ 7) but does not limit the term to this scenario. Accordingly, it is unclear what is being claimed.
As to claims 10 and 20, “minimal … changes in road grade” constitutes relative term of degree with no reference. The specification does not provide a standard for how much change is minimal. Accordingly, it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1. Claims 12-20 depend on claim 11.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20220194354A1; “Li”) in view of Kim et al. (US20160208718A1; “Kim”), in view of Okubo et al. (US20100017054A1; “Okubo”) and in view of Bolthouse et al. (US11267453B1; “Bolthouse”).
As to independent claim 1, Li discloses a powertrain mode optimization system for a powertrain of a vehicle, the powertrain mode optimization system comprising:
a set of sensors configured to measure a set of operating parameters of the vehicle, the set of operating parameters relating to a plurality of operating modes of the powertrain (“The HEV 100 also comprises a controller 136 configured to control the parallel hybrid powertrain 104 for optimal operation across a plurality of different propulsion and charging modes based on specific algorithms and inputs from a set of sensors 140.” ¶ 19 and FIG. 1.), wherein the powertrain includes at least an internal combustion engine (engine 108 - ¶ 19 and FIG. 1.) and a multi-speed automatic transmission configured to generate drive torque to a driveline of the vehicle (transmission 112 - ¶ 19 and FIG. 1.); and
a control system (controller 136 – ¶ 19 and FIG. 1.) configured to:
calculate, for each of the plurality of operating modes and based on the set of operating parameters, a cost indicative of a mathematical entity for a particular operating mode quantifying an affinity to choose that particular operating mode (“Referring now to FIG. 2 and with continued reference to FIG. 1, a table 200 illustrating example operating modes of the parallel hybrid powertrain 104 including different propulsion and charging modes is illustrated. As shown, there are 15 different operating modes …. The specific algorithms employed by the controller 136 to determine which of these operating modes to select and enable at a given time for optimal power management will now be discussed in greater detail with reference to FIG. 3” ¶ 21 and FIGS. 1-3. “At 308, the controller 136 determines an optimal operating mode for the parallel hybrid powertrain 104 based on the plurality of parameters. In one exemplary implementation, the optimal control is to achieve the most appropriate trade-off among multiple considerations of powertrain control and, more particularly, good fuel economy and high drivability. For example, this could include determining the minimum cost value of an objective function. At 312, the controller 136 controls the parallel hybrid powertrain 104 based on the selected optimal operating mode” ¶ 22 and FIG. 3.);
calculate, for each of the plurality of operating modes and based on the set of operating parameters, a cost offset or penalty associated with operating in the respective operating mode, each cost offset or penalty including a steady-state cost offset (SSCO) value or penalty (Out of “15 different operating modes,” a controller determines “which of these operating modes to select and enable at a given time for optimal power management” - ¶ 21 and FIGS. 1-3. “At 308, the controller 136 determines an optimal operating mode for the parallel hybrid powertrain 104 based on the plurality of parameters. … [T]he optimal control is to achieve the most appropriate trade-off among multiple considerations of powertrain control and, more particularly, good fuel economy and high drivability. … [T]his could include determining the minimum cost value of an objective function. At 312, the controller 136 controls the parallel hybrid powertrain 104 based on the selected optimal operating mode.” ¶ 22 and FIG. 3. “The objective function for determining the minimum cost value min(J) is defined as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where … ƒpen is a multiplier penalty factor used to tune the weight of the electricity power change in the cost function, FICE_control is a penalty function as torque change rate to consider the controllability of engine torque, FICE_StartStop is a penalty function to consider the drivability cost of engine start-stop, Fshift is a penalty function to consider the drivability cost of a transmission shift, and Fthermal is a penalty function to consider the thermal states of the powertrain 104 to avoid overheating” ¶ 23; emphases added. “By using a cost function for drivability reduction, the supervisory control would strike a balance between fuel economy and driving comfort to decide if shift action should be taken” ¶ 26. Note: FICE_StartStop and Fshift analogize to the SSCO penalty because they constitute a cost penalty applied to an operating mode’s cost regarding switching away from the current mode (i.e., by considering the costs of starting/stopping an engine and performing a transmission shift).).
based on the calculated costs and energy-based cost offsets or penalties, determine an optimal operating mode of the plurality of operating modes in which to operate the powertrain (See at least the quoted language above pertaining to ¶¶ 21-22 and FIGS. 1-3.); and
control operation of the powertrain based on the optimal operating mode (“At 312, the controller 136 controls the parallel hybrid powertrain 104 based on the selected optimal operating mode and the method 300 ends or returns to 304 for one or more additional cycles.” ¶ 22 and FIG. 3.).
Li fails to explicitly disclose:
determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain; and
each cost offset or penalty including an energy-based cost offset (EBCO) value or penalty.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches:
determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain (A method includes the step of “determining the first power cost associated with operating the powertrain system with the engine operating in a presently commanded engine state in response to an operator torque request” Abstract.); and
an energy-based cost offset (EBCO) value or penalty (An “integrated power cost difference ΣΔP” is calculated as follows: ΣΔP=ΣΔP(t-1)+ΔP,” wherein ΔP represents “a power cost difference … (ΔP=Pcost-command−Pcost-j)” — ¶ 30; emphasis added. “The new value for the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is compared to a power cost threshold (Threshold) (370), and if less than the power cost threshold (370)(0), this iteration ends (390). If the new value for the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is equal to or greater than the power cost threshold (370)(1), the engine is commanded to transition to the previously non-commanded engine state that has an integrated power cost difference ΣΔP that is less than the power cost associated with the presently commanded one of the engine states (380) …. As such, the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP generated by the engine state stabilization process 300 provides a capability to stabilize engine state transitions based upon time-integrated power, or energy” ¶ 31; see also ¶¶ 26, 32 and Table 1. Note: Here, the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP analogizes to the EBCO value because it is an offset representing an energy cost difference between a current mode and a candidate mode over time. The power cost difference ΣΔP thereby offsets the trend towards stabilization favoring the current operating mode such that a system transitions to a lower-cost mode when appropriate.).
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 invention of Li to include the features of: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain; and an energy-based cost offset (EBCO) value or penalty, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful “to prevent engine state transition busyness while allowing transitions even at low levels of difference between the commanded engine state and one or more target engine states” (Kim, ¶ 32). Kim teaches that known powertrain mode systems suffer from over-stabilization when a small power loss difference persists over a long duration (see Kim, ¶ 5), and that integrating a power cost difference “provides a capability to stabilize engine state transitions based upon time-integrated power, or energy” (Kim, ¶ 31). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Li’s invention necessarily requires knowledge of a current operating mode of a powertrain in order to determine how to switch from (or to maintain) said mode. Therefore, the incorporation into Kim into Li constitutes merely applying Kim’s known energy-based stabilization to Li’s known cost-based mode selection to yield predictable results.
The combination of Li and Kim fails to explicitly disclose: detect, based on vehicle speed and road grade, a steady-state period where the powertrain is operating at steady-state operating conditions.
Nevertheless, Okubo teaches: detect, based on vehicle speed and road grade, a steady-state period where a powertrain is operating at steady-state operating conditions (“The vehicle is considered to be at steady-state when the driver demanded power is less than a maximum power for filtering and greater than a minimum power for filtering. The road-load power is calculated based upon the vehicle coast-down coefficients (friction loss and aerodynamic drag, as a function of vehicle speed), and compensated for inferred grade of the road. Power demand is compared to road-load. The difference is filtered using a filter constant that is based on a normalized function of the difference” ¶ 10; emphases added.).
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 combination of Li and Kim to include the feature of: detect, based on vehicle speed and road grade, a steady-state period where a powertrain is operating at steady-state operating conditions, as taught by Okubo, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “distinguish between steady-state and transient conditions” in a manner which avoids “delaying the engine's response to an acceleration or deceleration request” caused by a simple filter for transient conditions being active under all operating conditions (see Okubo, ¶¶ 7-9 and 46). Hence, the combination would merely constitute applying Okubo’s known steady-state detection into the cost-based mode selection of Li and Kim to yield predictable results.
The combination of Li, Kim and Okubo fails to explicitly disclose: in response to the detecting the steady-state period, apply the cost offsets or penalties, including the SSCO values or penalties and the EBCO values or penalties, to the calculated costs, respectively, for the plurality of operating modes.
Nevertheless, Bolthouse teaches: in response to detecting the steady-state period, applying energy-based costs in determining how to operate a powertrain (“An algorithm is used to detect steady state operation of both driver demand and powertrain speed. When steady state operation is detected, the EM torque will transition from the transient table output to the steady state table output via a bumpless transfer or smooth transition arbitration strategy” col. 3, ll. 65-67 to col. 4 ll. 1-3. “Control strategy or logic 300 includes a transient operation lookup table 310 that outputs an electric machine torque target or desired operating point based on a current powertrain speed 312 and driver demand torque 314. Transient operation lookup table 310 may include values determined to minimize instantaneous system losses. A steady state operation lookup table 316 is accessed to retrieve or select a corresponding electric machine torque target or desired operating point based on the current powertrain speed 312 and driver demand torque 314. Steady state operation lookup table 316 may include values determined to minimize long term system energy losses by considering the finite charge storage capacity and current SOC of the traction battery” col. 11 ll. 13-26. See also FIG. 3. Note: Applying a steady state operation lookup table analogizes to applying energy-based costs because the lookup table accounts for energy loss (i.e., costs) as to determine an optimal running state.).
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 combination of Li, Kim and Okubo to include the feature of: in response to detecting the steady-state period, applying energy-based costs in determining how to operate a powertrain, as taught by Bolthouse, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for avoiding “inefficient use of battery power and fuel” while driving (Bolthouse, col. 1, ll. 48-51). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Bolthouse’s steady-state application of energy-based costs may be implemented in the cost-function framework of the cited art by applying Li’s SSCO and Kim’s EBCO in response to steady-state detection. The combination applies a known technique to a known cost-based mode selection system to yield predictable results.
Independent claim 11 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar features but for minor differences.
As to claims 2 and 12, Li discloses: wherein the control system is configured to calculate the energy-based cost offset or penalty by accumulating or integrating a raw costs for a raw operating mode of the powertrain over a future period (“The objective function for determining the minimum cost value min(J) is defined as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where … ƒpen is a multiplier penalty factor used to tune the weight of the electricity power change in the cost function, FICE_control is a penalty function as torque change rate to consider the controllability of engine torque, FICE_StartStop is a penalty function to consider the drivability cost of engine start-stop, Fshift is a penalty function to consider the drivability cost of a transmission shift, and Fthermal is a penalty function to consider the thermal states of the powertrain 104 to avoid overheating.” ¶ 23. “Under each feasible operation state, the cost function is evaluated for the available adjacent gear states of upper two gears and lower two gears. The optimal control results are obtained with a minimum solution in the set of all the states comprising combination of power states and gear states.” ¶ 24. Note: Summarizing, over a future time period 0 to t, energy-based cost offsets and/or penalties are integrated in raw costs for a raw desired powertrain mode.).
Li fails to explicitly disclose: accumulating or integrating a difference in raw costs for a raw operating mode of the powertrain and a current operating mode of the powertrain over a future period.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: integrating a difference in raw costs for a raw operating mode of a powertrain and a current operating mode of a powertrain (“A method for controlling operation of a multi-mode powertrain system includes periodically determining a power cost difference between a first power cost and a second power cost. This includes determining the first power cost associated with operating the powertrain system with the engine operating in a presently commanded engine state in response to an operator torque request and determining the second power cost associated with an expected powertrain operation with the engine operating in a non-commanded engine state in response to the operator torque request. The first power cost is compared with the second power cost, and successive iterations of the periodically determined power cost difference between the first power cost and the second power cost are integrated to determine an integrated power cost difference.” Abstract. See also ¶¶ 31, 33–36 and FIGS. 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 which provide detailed discussion regarding the Abstract’s description.).
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 invention of Li to include the feature of: integrating a difference in raw costs for a raw operating mode of a powertrain and a current operating mode of a powertrain, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to prevent engine state transition busyness while allowing transitions even at low levels of difference between the commanded engine state and one or more target engine states” (Kim, ¶ 32). Kim teaches that known powertrain mode systems suffer from over-stabilization when a small power loss difference persists over a long duration (see Kim, ¶ 5), and that integrating a power cost difference “provides a capability to stabilize engine state transitions based upon time-integrated power, or energy” (Kim, ¶ 31). Therefore, the incorporation into Kim into Li constitutes merely applying Kim’s known energy-based stabilization to Li’s known cost-based mode selection to yield predictable results.
As to claims 3 and 13, Li discloses: wherein the optimal mode of the powertrain is defined as:
min(CA, CB, CC),
where CA, CB, and CC represent the costs of operating modes A, B, and C, respectively, and operating mode A has a highest cost (“Under each feasible operation state, the cost function is evaluated for the available adjacent gear states of upper two gears and lower two gears. The optimal control results are obtained with a minimum solution in the set of all the states comprising combination of power states and gear states.” ¶ 24.) and:
CB = CRB + OB
CC = CRC + OC, and
CB > CC + OB – OC,
where CRB and OB represent raw and offset or penalty costs of powertrain mode B, respectively, where operating mode B represents the optimal operating mode considering only the SSCO values or penalties, and CRC and OC represent raw and offset or penalty costs of operating mode C, respectively (“The objective function for determining the minimum cost value min(J) is defined as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where … ƒpen is a multiplier penalty factor used to tune the weight of the electricity power change in the cost function, FICE_control is a penalty function as torque change rate to consider the controllability of engine torque, FICE_StartStop is a penalty function to consider the drivability cost of engine start-stop, Fshift is a penalty function to consider the drivability cost of a transmission shift, and Fthermal is a penalty function to consider the thermal states of the powertrain 104 to avoid overheating” ¶ 23; emphases added. “By using a cost function for drivability reduction, the supervisory control would strike a balance between fuel economy and driving comfort to decide if shift action should be taken” ¶ 26. Note: The claimed inequality reduces to C_RB > C_RC. That is, the claim sets forth that operating mode C has a lower raw cost than operating mode B. Li’s disclosure at ¶ 26 essentially matches the conditional operation that an operating mode with a lower raw cost is chosen over an operating mode with a higher raw cost. Furthermore, Li selects a mode from raw cost (fuel and battery terms) plus drivability penalties. Li does not provide an EBCO; hence, Li’s modes only consider SSCO values.).
Li fails to explicitly disclose: operating mode A is the current operating mode.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain (A method includes the step of “determining the first power cost associated with operating the powertrain system with the engine operating in a presently commanded engine state in response to an operator torque request.” Abstract.).
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 invention of Li to include the feature of: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain, as taught by Kim, to yield the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Li’s invention would benefit from considering a current state from its plurality of operating states in calculating costs between the plurality of operating modes, as such would enable a powertrain system to determine if its current operating mode is optimal or not.
As to claims 4 and 14, Li fails to explicitly disclose: wherein each EBCO value or penalty (γ) is defined as:
PNG
media_image2.png
76
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where F represents an integration factor function f(n) of a particular operating mode, tOB-OC represents a time of a state transition between state OB and state OC, and dt represents a differential of time.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: defining an EBCO value (γ) as:
PNG
media_image2.png
76
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where F represents an integration factor function f(n) of a particular operating mode, tOB-OC represents a time of a state transition between a state OB and a state OC, and dt represents a differential of time (An “integrated power cost difference ΣΔP” is calculated as follows: ΣΔP=ΣΔP(t-1)+ΔP,” wherein ΔP represents “a power cost difference … (ΔP=Pcost-command−Pcost-j)” — ¶ 30; emphasis added. “The new value for the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is compared to a power cost threshold (Threshold) (370), and if less than the power cost threshold (370)(0), this iteration ends (390). If the new value for the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is equal to or greater than the power cost threshold (370)(1), the engine is commanded to transition to the previously non-commanded engine state that has an integrated power cost difference ΣΔP that is less than the power cost associated with the presently commanded one of the engine states (380). The integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is reset to zero (ΣΔP=0) (385), and this iteration ends (390). As such, the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP generated by the engine state stabilization process 300 provides a capability to stabilize engine state transitions based upon time-integrated power, or energy” ¶ 31; see also ¶¶ 26, 29, 32 and Table 1. Note: Here, the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP analogizes to the EBCO value because it is an offset representing an energy cost difference between one mode and another mode over time. The power cost difference ΣΔP thereby offsets the trend towards maintaining a steady-state in current operating mode such that a system transitions to a lower-cost mode when appropriate. Furthermore, the integrated power cost difference is calculated from initial state of zero up to when the mode transitions, matching the claimed time interval. As for the integrand, as penned the integrated power cost difference is an accumulated (integrated) value of the raw cost differences between two modes. Regarding the negative sign, Kim’s determination that ΣΔP exceeds the threshold is equivalent to subtracting ΣΔP from the stabilization margin, which is γ’s role as an EBCO value in CB > CC + OB – OC + γ (application PGPUB, ¶ 29). Finally, the iteration period corresponds to dt, and the time element corresponds to the integration factor F as it is a factor applied to a given state’s accumulation.).
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 invention of Li to include the above-cited features as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful “to prevent engine state transition busyness while allowing transitions even at low levels of difference between the commanded engine state and one or more target engine states” (Kim, ¶ 32). Kim teaches that known powertrain mode systems suffer from over-stabilization when a small power loss difference persists over a long duration (see Kim, ¶ 5), and that integrating a power cost difference “provides a capability to stabilize engine state transitions based upon time-integrated power, or energy” (Kim, ¶ 31). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Li’s invention necessarily requires knowledge of a current operating mode of a powertrain in order to determine how to switch from (or to maintain) said mode. Therefore, the incorporation into Kim into Li constitutes merely applying Kim’s known energy-based stabilization to Li’s known cost-based mode selection to yield predictable results.
As to claims 5 and 15, Li fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the control system is further configured to reset each EBCO value or penalty γ after an operating mode transition of the powertrain.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: wherein the control system is further configured to reset each EBCO value or penalty γ after an operating mode transition of the powertrain (After “the engine is commanded to transition” to an optimal engine state, the “integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is reset to zero.” ¶ 31.).
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 invention of Li to include the feature of: wherein the control system is further configured to reset the energy-based cost offset or penalty γ after an operating mode transition of the powertrain, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to prevent engine state transition busyness while allowing transitions even at low levels of difference between the commanded engine state and one or more target engine states” (Kim, ¶ 32).
As to claims 6 and 16, Li fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the control system is further configured to perform periodic cost-based transition checks.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: wherein the control system is further configured to perform periodic cost-based transition checks (“The engine state stabilization process 300 executes periodically.” ¶ 27.).
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 invention of Li to include the feature of: wherein the control system is further configured to reset the energy-based cost offset or penalty γ after an operating mode transition of the powertrain, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to prevent engine state transition busyness while allowing transitions even at low levels of difference between the commanded engine state and one or more target engine states” (Kim, ¶ 32).
The combination of Li, Kim and Okubo fail to explicitly disclose: performing the above during steady-state periods.
Nevertheless, Bolthouse teaches: performing periodic cost-based transition checks during steady-state periods (“FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating operation of a system or method for detecting steady state operation and controlling the transition from transient to steady state EM torque control. …. A steady state operation lookup table 316 is accessed to retrieve or select a corresponding electric machine torque target or desired operating point based on the current powertrain speed 312 and driver demand torque 314. Steady state operation lookup table 316 may include values determined to minimize long term system energy losses by considering the finite charge storage capacity and current SOC of the traction battery. The electric machine torque retrieved from lookup tables 310, 316 is provided to a bumpless transfer arbitration strategy or function 320 that determines an optimal output torque 392 based on inputs from blocks 310, 316, 372, 380, and 390 as described in greater detail below.” col 11, ll. 10-29. “one or more of the illustrated steps or functions may be repeatedly performed” – col. 7, ll. 53-54.).
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 combination of Li, Kim and Okubo to include the feature of: performing periodic cost-based transition checks during steady-state periods, as taught by Bolthouse, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for avoiding “inefficient use of battery power and fuel” while driving (Bolthouse, col. 1, ll. 48-51). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Bolthouse’s steady-state application of energy-based costs may be implemented in the cost-function framework of the cited art by applying Li’s SSCO and Kim’s EBCO in response to steady-state detection. The combination applies a known technique to a known cost-based mode selection system to yield predictable results.
As to claims 7 and 17, Li discloses: wherein a value of the cost for each particular mode is made up of
an amount of power consumed (“EICE is the fuel consumption rate of the engine 108” ¶ 23.); and
a component-based penalty cost (“Fthermal is a penalty function to consider thermal states of the parallel hybrid powertrain to avoid overheating” ¶ 23.).
Li fails to explicitly disclose: a drivability-based bias cost.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: a drivability-based bias cost (“The power cost inputs to the power cost function 100 are determined based upon factors related to vehicle drivability, fuel economy, emissions, and battery usage” ¶ 25; emphasis added.).
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 invention of Li to include the feature of: wherein the control system is further configured to reset the energy-based cost offset or penalty γ after an operating mode transition of the powertrain, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to prevent engine state transition busyness while allowing transitions even at low levels of difference between the commanded engine state and one or more target engine states” (Kim, ¶ 32).
As to claims 8 and 18, Li discloses: wherein the vehicle is a hybrid vehicle and the powertrain is a hybrid powertrain including the engine and at least one electric motor (“The present application generally relates to hybrid vehicle powertrain control” – ¶ 1. “first electric motor 120” – ¶ 19 and FIG. 1.).
As to claims 9 and 19, Li fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the control system is configured to not continue operating the powertrain in a sub-optimal mode.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: wherein the control system is configured to not continue operating the powertrain in a sub-optimal mode (“The new value for the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is compared to a power cost threshold (Threshold) (370), and if less than the power cost threshold (370)(0), this iteration ends (390). If the new value for the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is equal to or greater than the power cost threshold (370)(1), the engine is commanded to transition to the previously non-commanded engine state that has an integrated power cost difference ΣΔP that is less than the power cost associated with the presently commanded one of the engine states (380) …. As such, the integrated power cost difference ΣΔP generated by the engine state stabilization process 300 provides a capability to stabilize engine state transitions based upon time-integrated power, or energy” ¶ 31; see also ¶¶ 28, 30, 32; Table 1.).
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 invention of Li to include the feature of: wherein the control system is configured to not continue operating the powertrain in a sub-optimal mode, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to prevent engine state transition busyness while allowing transitions even at low levels of difference between the commanded engine state and one or more target engine states” (Kim, ¶ 32). Indeed, such avoids over-stabilization when a small power loss difference persists over a long duration (see Kim, ¶ 5),
The combination of Li, Kim and Okubo fails to explicitly disclose: performing the above during an extended steady-state period.
Nevertheless, Boathouse teaches: in response to detecting an extended steady-state period, not continuing to operate a powertrain in a sub-optimal manner (“An algorithm is used to detect steady state operation of both driver demand and powertrain speed. When steady state operation is detected, the EM torque will transition from the transient table output to the steady state table output via a bumpless transfer or smooth transition arbitration strategy” col. 3, ll. 65-67 to col. 4 ll. 1-3. “Control strategy or logic 300 includes a transient operation lookup table 310 that outputs an electric machine torque target or desired operating point based on a current powertrain speed 312 and driver demand torque 314. Transient operation lookup table 310 may include values determined to minimize instantaneous system losses. A steady state operation lookup table 316 is accessed to retrieve or select a corresponding electric machine torque target or desired operating point based on the current powertrain speed 312 and driver demand torque 314. Steady state operation lookup table 316 may include values determined to minimize long term system energy losses by considering the finite charge storage capacity and current SOC of the traction battery” col. 11 ll. 13-26. See also FIG. 3. “When steady state timer 362 exceeds the associated calibratable steady state time limit 370, a corresponding output or flag is provided by block 372 to arbitration logic or strategy 320 indicating that steady state operation has been detected” col. 12, ll. 14-18. Note: Applying a steady state operation lookup table analogizes to applying energy-based costs because the lookup table accounts for energy loss (i.e., costs) as to determine an optimal running state.).
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 combination of Li, Kim and Okubo to include the feature of: in response to detected an extended steady-state period, not continuing to operate a powertrain in a sub-optimal manner, as taught by Bolthouse, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “maximize the utility of the finite charge capacity of the battery when steady state driver is detected” (Bolthouse, col. 4, ll. 9-10). Bolthouse’s teaching parallels Kim in the sense that stabilization should not hold the powertrain in a higher-cost state when a small cost difference persists over a long duration (see Kim, ¶ 5). Hence, the combination applies Bolthouse’s shifting from a sub-optimal state to the Kim’s mode transition, yielding predictable results.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Kim, in view of Okubo and in view of Bolthouse as applied to claim 9 – further in view of Boot (US20130245912A1; “Boot”).
As to claims 10 and 20, the combination of Li, Kim and Dai fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the extended steady-state period includes operating the powertrain in a cruise control operating mode with a set vehicle speed and minimal or no changes in road grade.
Nevertheless, Boot teaches: operating the powertrain in a cruise control operating mode with a set vehicle speed and minimal or no changes in road grade (To perform “Electric Cruise Control,” it is checked whether “If the road slope is lower than a threshold value which is preferably variable within certain limits, namely if Road Slope<(Pmax±Pmax_Hyst), where Pmax is the nominal upper limit of the road slope (e.g. Pmax=8%), and Pmax_Hyst is a tolerated percentage variation around the value Pmax (e.g. Pmax_Hyst=±1%) …. Such tolerated percentage variation of the slope threshold is necessary to avoid a repeated switching between ON and OFF of the activation control of the cruise control function for minimal variations of road slope, or also to avoid continual and repeated switching between ‘Electric Cruise Control’ ElCC and ‘Engine Cruise Control’ EnCC. The Road Slope value is to be intended as an absolute value, namely the road slope may be either positive (uphill) or negative (downhill)” ¶ 22.).
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 combination of Li, Kim and Dai to include the feature of: operating the powertrain in a cruise control operating mode with a set vehicle speed and minimal or no changes in road grade, as taught by Boot, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for avoiding continual and repeated activation/deactivation of cruise control in response to road grade, or also to avoid continual and repeated switching between electric cruise control and engine cruise control (Boot, ¶ 22.)
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3668
1 N.B. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claimed SSCO value is ambiguous given the indefiniteness of the term – see § 112(b) claim rejections below.
