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 11/19/2025. Applicant amended claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17 and 19-20. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the objections to the specification, Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/19/2025 obviate said objections – accordingly, the objections to the specification are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/19/2025 obviate said objections – accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 101, Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/19/2025 obviate said rejections – accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues in regards to the claim limitation of “calculate, for each of the plurality of operating modes and based on the set of operating parameters, an energy-based cost offset or penalty associated with operating in the respective operating mode.” Applicant argues that Li does not disclose the foregoing feature, and that Li rather only generally discusses determining “a most appropriate trade-off among multiple considerations of powertrain control and, more particularly, good fuel economy and high drivability.” (Li, ¶ 22.)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Li discloses the BRI of the claim limitation at issue. Li paragraph [0021] provides further context that indeed a plurality of operating modes are considered: “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.” Then, as cited in the Office Action Li goes on to disclose: “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.” (Li, ¶ 22.) From the foregoing, it is clear that Li contemplates through calculation which of a plurality of operating modes satisfies considerations of powertrain control, including an energy-based cost offset or penalty associated with the operating mode (e.g., fuel economy). Examiner respectfully submits that this matches the BRI of the claim limitation at issue because the successful operation of Li requires that each operating mode’s energy cost is considered (and hence calculated) in order to successfully determine which operating mode is the most optimal for a set of operating parameters.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
In regards to Applicant’s belief that claims 4 and 14 are indicated as allowable, Examiner respectfully submits that such is not the case. In the Non-Final Office Action (NFOA), the § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 14 had a minor typographical error and was mistakenly written as a rejection of claims 5 and 15, wherein the rejection at issue is located between the rejection of claims 3 and 13 and the rejection of the “second instance” of claims 5 and 15 at pages 10-11. Critically, said rejection addressed the claim language of claims 4 and 14, and both the index of claims and the PTOL-326 (Office Action Summary) indicated claims 4 and 14 as rejected. Accordingly, the presence of the rejection of claims 4 and 14 does not constitute a new grounds of rejection which would merit another NFOA.
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. § 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.
Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11–13, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20220194354A1; “Li”) in view of Kim et al. (US20160208718A1; “Kim”).
As to 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, an energy-based cost offset or penalty associated with operating in the respective operating mode (See at least the quoted language above pertaining to ¶¶ 21-22 and FIGS. 1-3.); and
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
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.).
Li discloses: a powertrain mode optimization system for a powertrain of a vehicle, wherein a control system is configured to, based on calculated costs and energy-based cost offsets or penalties, determine which of the plurality of operating modes in which to operate the powertrain. Kim teaches: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain.
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, with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Li’s invention would necessarily require the knowledge of a current operating mode of a powertrain in order to determine how to switch (or maintain) to an optimal operating mode – Kim provides the explicit teaching that such is known in the art; and (2) Kim’s teaching is useful for “managing transitions and stabilizing states of internal combustion engines.” (Kim, ¶ 5.)
Independent claim 11 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter 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 over a future period (“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.).
Li discloses: a powertrain mode optimization system for a powertrain of a vehicle, wherein a control system is configured to, based on calculated costs and energy-based cost offsets or penalties, determine which of the plurality of operating modes in which to operate the powertrain. Kim teaches: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain; and integrating a difference in raw costs for a raw operating mode of a powertrain and a current operating mode of a powertrain over a future period.
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 over a future period, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “managing transitions and stabilizing states of internal combustion engines.” (Kim, ¶ 5.)
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,
where CRB and OB represent raw and offset or penalty costs of powertrain mode B and CRC and OC represent raw and offset or penalty costs of operating mode C, respectively (A minimum cost value function for a powertrain mode is defined as:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at a certain infinitesimal period of time, a cost is defined as a sum of raw costs (e.g., EICE representing fuel consumption rate) and penalties (e.g., FICE_control representing a penalty function as torque change rate).).
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.).
Li discloses: a powertrain mode optimization system for a powertrain of a vehicle, wherein a control system is configured to, based on calculated costs and energy-based cost offsets or penalties, determine which of the plurality of operating modes in which to operate the powertrain; further wherein the optimal operating mode is defined by calculating a minimum of costs of a plurality operating modes. Kim teaches: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain.
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 discloses: defining a penalty (γ) as an integral from 0 to t (i.e., time at the end of a state change), wherein the integrand is an integration factor function ƒ(n) of a particular powertrain mode (A minimum cost value function for a powertrain mode is defined as:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at a certain infinitesimal period of time, a cost is defined as a sum of raw costs (e.g., EICE representing fuel consumption rate) and penalties (e.g., FICE_control representing a penalty function as torque change rate).).
Li fails to explicitly disclose: in which F — wherein F is a function of CRB and CRC — represents an integration factor function ƒ(n) of a particular powertrain mode.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: defining a function F as a difference in raw costs for a raw desired powertrain mode (CRC) and a current powertrain mode (CRB) over a future time period (“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.).
Li discloses: a powertrain mode optimization system for a powertrain of a vehicle, wherein a control system is configured to, based on calculated costs and energy-based cost offsets or penalties, determine which of the plurality of operating modes in which to operate the powertrain; including the step of defining a penalty (γ) as an integral from 0 to t (i.e., time at the end of a state change), wherein the integrand is an integration factor function ƒ(n) of a particular powertrain mode. Kim teaches: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain; and integrating a difference in raw costs for a raw desired powertrain mode and a current powertrain mode over a future period.
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 desired powertrain mode and a current powertrain mode over a future period, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “managing transitions and stabilizing states of internal combustion engines.” (Kim, ¶ 5.)
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider Kim’s difference of costs as a potential integration factor function since Kim is performing a similar calculation (i.e., a summation of costs) as Li (i.e., an integration of costs, which is ultimately a form of summation). Hence it would have been obvious to modify Li’s integrand with Kim’s difference to arrive at the claimed invention.
As to claims 5 and 15, Li fails to explicitly disclose: 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.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: 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 (After “the engine is commanded to transition” to an optimal engine state, the “integrated power cost difference ΣΔP is reset to zero.” ¶ 31.).
Li discloses: a powertrain mode optimization system for a powertrain of a vehicle, wherein a control system is configured to, based on calculated costs and energy-based cost offsets or penalties, determine which of the plurality of operating modes in which to operate the powertrain; including the step of defining a penalty (γ) as an integral from 0 to t (i.e., time at the end of a state change), wherein the integrand is an integration factor function ƒ(n) of a particular powertrain mode. Kim teaches: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain; and integrating a difference in raw costs for a raw desired powertrain mode and a current powertrain mode over a future period, 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.
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 for “managing transitions and stabilizing states of internal combustion engines.” (Kim, ¶ 5.)
As to claims 7 and 17, Li discloses: wherein a value of the cost for each particular operating mode is made up of (i) an amount of power consumed (The minimum cost value equation considers at least “Ebattery [which] is a total electricity power change of the battery system.” ¶ 5.), (ii) a drivability-based bias cost (The minimum cost value equation considers at least “FICE_StartStop [which] is a penalty function to consider a drivability cost of engine start-stop.” ¶ 5.), and (iii) a component-based penalty cost (The minimum cost value equation considers at least “EICE [which] is a fuel consumption rate of the engine.” ¶ 5.).
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.).
Claims 6, 9, 16 and 19 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Dai et al. (US8715136B1; “Dai”)
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.).
Li discloses: a powertrain mode optimization system for a powertrain of a vehicle, wherein a control system is configured to, based on calculated costs and energy-based cost offsets or penalties, determine which of the plurality of operating modes in which to operate the powertrain. Kim teaches: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain; and wherein the control system is further configured to perform periodic cost-based transition checks.
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 perform periodic cost-based transition checks, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Li’s invention would necessarily require periodic cost-based transition checks as otherwise Li’s invention would be inoperable past a first check – Kim provides the explicit teaching that such is known in the art; and (2) Kim’s teaching is useful for “managing transitions and stabilizing states of internal combustion engines.” (Kim, ¶ 5.)
The combination of Li and Kim fail to explicitly disclose: performing the above during steady-state periods.
Nevertheless, Dai teaches: performing a cost-based transition check during steady-state periods (“When the vehicle resumes steady state normal driving, the controller may then optimize use of the power sources between the engine torque level versus electrical motor torque level contribution to the total powertrain torque.” Col. 4, ll. 54–58.).
Li discloses: a powertrain mode optimization system for a powertrain of a vehicle, wherein a control system is configured to, based on calculated costs and energy-based cost offsets or penalties, determine which of the plurality of operating modes in which to operate the powertrain. Kim teaches: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain; and wherein the control system is further configured to perform periodic cost-based transition checks. Dai teaches: performing a cost-based transition check during steady-state periods.
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: performing a cost-based transition check during steady-state periods, as taught by Dai, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that vehicular state transitions are preferably performed during steady-state conditions as otherwise performing such in unsteady states could damage vehicular components and/or cause danger to passengers.
As to claims 9 and 19, the combination of Li and Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the control system is configured to not continue operating the powertrain in a sub-optimal mode during an extended steady-state period.
Nevertheless, Dai teaches: wherein the control system is configured to not continue operating the powertrain in a sub-optimal mode during an extended steady-state period (“When the vehicle resumes steady state normal driving, the controller may then optimize use of the power sources between the engine torque level versus electrical motor torque level contribution to the total powertrain torque.” Col. 4, ll. 54–58. Examiner Note: Performing optimization during steady-state driving necessarily puts the vehicle in a state where it does not continue to operate the powertrain in a sub-optimal mode.).
Li discloses: a powertrain mode optimization system for a powertrain of a vehicle, wherein a control system is configured to, based on calculated costs and energy-based cost offsets or penalties, determine which of the plurality of operating modes in which to operate the powertrain. Kim teaches: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain; and wherein the control system is further configured to perform periodic cost-based transition checks. Dai teaches: wherein the control system is configured to not continue operating the powertrain in a sub-optimal mode during an extended steady-state period.
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: wherein the control system is configured to not continue operating the powertrain in a sub-optimal mode during an extended steady-state period, as taught by Dai, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that vehicular state transitions are preferably performed during steady-state conditions as otherwise performing such in unsteady states could damage vehicular components and/or cause danger to passengers. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in Li the powertrain is not performed in a sub-optimal mode during any period, never mind an extended steady-state period. Dai provides the explicit teaching that optimization of the powertrain typically occurs during steady-state operation.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kim and in view of Dai 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).
Li discloses: a powertrain mode optimization system for a powertrain of a vehicle, wherein a control system is configured to, based on calculated costs and energy-based cost offsets or penalties, determine which of the plurality of operating modes in which to operate the powertrain. Kim teaches: determine a current operating mode of the powertrain of the plurality of operating modes of the powertrain; and wherein the control system is further configured to perform periodic cost-based transition checks. Dai teaches: wherein the control system is configured to not continue operating the powertrain in a sub-optimal mode during an extended steady-state period. Boot teaches: operating the powertrain in a cruise control operating mode with a set vehicle speed and minimal or no changes in road grade.
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. (Boot, ¶ 22.)
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon pertains to Applicant’s disclosure. Krupadanam et al. (US20130030627A1) discloses: calculate, for each of the plurality of operating modes and based on the set of operating parameters, an energy-based cost offset or penalty associated with operating in the respective operating mode (“Calculating respective costs for operating the vehicle in a plurality of operating modes based on the battery discharge penalty and the costs associated with operating the electrical and mechanical portions of the transmission; and selecting an operating mode having the lowest calculated cost.” ¶ 5.).
This action is 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 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 date of this final action.
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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668