DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant Arguments and Remarks Made in an Amendment filed on 07/23/2025 for application with case number 18/449,686 (filed on 08/14/2023) in which claims 1-20 were originally presented for examination.
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
Claims 1-2 & 10-11 are currently amended, 6-9 & 15-20 cancelled, and 3-5 & 12-14 remain the same as originally presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the drawing/specification objections: Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8, with respect to failing to include reference 100 in Fig. 1 and reference 226 & 230 being absent in the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive in response to amendments. The objections of the drawings and specification have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim objections: Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8, with respect to claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 13, & 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive in response to amendments. The objections of claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 13, & 19 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §112(b): Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, with respect to claims 5, 14, & 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive in response to amendments. The objections of claims 5, 14, & 19 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §103: Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9-14, filed independent claims 1 & 10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 & 10 under USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in response to amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of examiner mistaking prior art Shin of being deficient in disclosing limitations previously stated otherwise, as well as reviewing and adding Thompson to teach the newly amended independent claim limitations. Examiner stated in the Non-final office action, mailed on 05/21/2025, that the primary art of Shin did not disclose some libations of the independent claims 1 & 10. Gebby et al. US 20050023058 A1 (hereinafter Gebby) was used to supplement the Shin in teaching the claims in their entirety, but after further review Shin does indeed teach the limitations that previously relied on Gebby. Applicant mentioned in the interview the intent to highlight the “ramp-up” process of the internal combustion system in the instant application, but after reviewing applicant arguments and revisiting prior art of record the examiner respectfully disagrees that the teachings of Thompson [0032] fail to read upon the previous and newly added limitations pertaining to the internal combustion engine ramp-up. Thompson [0013] teaches the engine is an internal combustion engine and indeed is the one performing the process of being brought up to speed (i.e ramp-up) while being completely disengaged from the transmission and motor/generator via the open clutch. Applicant cited [0014] of Thompson to support their argument, but this section pertains to still ramping-up the engine to the M/G speed instead of relying on the separate starter motor. Thus, a new rejection of independent claim 1 using prior art Shin in view of Thompson is disclosed below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. US 20240043021 A1 (hereinafter Shin) in view of Thompson et al. US 20220032903 A1 (hereinafter Thompson).
Claim 10: Shin discloses A control system for a vehicle having a vehicle drive system and plurality of torque sources including an internal combustion engine and one or more electric motors connected to the vehicle drive system [[0003]; A hybrid electric vehicle (HEY), also referred to as a hybrid vehicle, includes an electric motor in addition to a conventional configuration of a transmission and an internal combustion engine], the control system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising [[0044]; the control logic of the present disclosure may be embodied as non-transitory computer readable media on a computer readable medium containing executable program instructions executed by a processor, controller or the like]: instructing a first torque source of the plurality of torque sources to provide an instantaneous torque to the vehicle drive system [[0004]; the hybrid vehicle is driven by appropriately using electric power from the electric motor or mechanical power of the internal combustion engine according to a driver's intention and a battery power state]; receiving a requested torque output for the vehicle drive system [[0050]; The vehicle state judgment unit 110 may receive a position of an accelerator pedal of a user and a brake switch input signal from various sensors of the vehicle, and judge a required torque of the user based thereon]; obtaining a first available torque source output of the first torque source [[0051]; The vehicle state judgment unit 110 may receive a motor torque and an engine torque actually measured by a controller that drives the motor or an engine according to the required torque]; calculating a first torque error based on the requested torque output and the first available torque source output for the first torque source [[0059]; the vehicle state judgment unit 110 may judge whether torques of the individual power sources are abnormal based on the normal torque range including a lower threshold for torque error and an upper threshold for torque error provided in advance through a vehicle test]; determining whether the first torque error exceeds a torque error threshold; and when the first torque error exceeds the torque error threshold [[0079]; the normal torque range may include an upper threshold of torque error and a lower threshold of torque error. The vehicle state judgment unit 110 may judge whether the normal torque range is exceeded for each of individual power sources], (…).
Shin does not explicitly disclose selecting the internal combustion engine as a first supplemental torque source; instructing the internal combustion engine to execute a ramp-up procedure to warm the internal combustion engine in an unloaded state prior to providing the first supplemental torque output to the vehicle drive system; and after the ramp-up procedure, activating the internal combustion engine to provide a first supplemental torque output to the vehicle drive system.
Thompson teaches selecting the internal combustion engine as a first supplemental torque source; instructing the internal combustion engine to execute a ramp-up procedure to warm the internal combustion engine in an unloaded state prior to providing the first supplemental torque output to the vehicle drive system; and after the ramp-up procedure, activating the internal combustion engine to provide a first supplemental torque output to the vehicle drive system [[0013] & [0032]; the engine 14 is started by the starter motor 31 while the disconnect clutch 26 is open, keeping the engine disconnected with the M/G 18. Once the engine has started and is brought up to speed with the M/G 18, the disconnect clutch 26 can couple the engine 14 to the M/G 18 to allow the engine to provide drive torque. (...) an engine start during a high SOD, may include requesting engine torque during ramp-up to the connection such that the throttle command is high to keep the engine torque high and the engine speed increasing when the disconnect clutch fully engages].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Thompson with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle torque control. The combination would increase battery health and fuel consumption [Thompson; [0028]; discloses when the engine and the motor are connected, the requested torque may be based on the driver demand and the engine torque in order to maintain battery state of charge and improve fuel economy].
Claim 1: The claim is directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim 10, respectively. The cited portions of Shin in view of Thompson used in the rejection of claim 10 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim 1, respectively. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim 10 as outlined above.
Claims 2-3, 5, 11-12, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Thompson, further in view of Mizutani et al. US 20090088914 A1 (hereinafter Mizutani) and Zhang et al. US 20140052359 A1 (hereinafter Zhang).
Claim 11: The combination of Shin and Thompson teach the system of claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 above is incorporated.
Shin discloses determining whether the [aggregate] torque error exceeds the torque error threshold; and when the [aggregate] torque error exceeds the torque error threshold [[0079]; the normal torque range may include an upper threshold of torque error and a lower threshold of torque error. The vehicle state judgment unit 110 may judge whether the normal torque range is exceeded for each of individual power sources].
Shin does not explicitly disclose the control system of Claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining an supplemental available torque source output of the first supplemental torque source; calculating an aggregate torque error based on the requested torque output and the supplemental available torque source output; instructing a second supplemental torque sources of the plurality of the torque sources to provide a second supplemental additional torque output to the vehicle drive system.
Mizutani teaches the control system of Claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a supplemental available torque source output of the first supplemental torque source [[0032]; the driving power allocation determination unit determines an allocation of an output between the internal combustion engine and all of the first and second motors for a driving power that the vehicle is required to output]; instructing a second supplemental torque sources of the plurality of the torque sources to provide a second supplemental additional torque output to the vehicle drive system [[0009]; if a decision is made that driving the wheel units by the two motors maximizes the motors' total efficiency, then the two motors are driven. In other words, a driving power required at the time is allocated between the plurality of motors to maximize the motors' total efficiency].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Mizutani with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle torque control. The combination would increase operability and fuel efficiency [Mizutani; [0024]; the present driving power control apparatus for a four wheel drive vehicle can both ensure the vehicle of dynamics and achieve improved mileage].
Shin in view of Mizutani do not explicitly teach calculating an aggregate torque error based on the requested torque output and the supplemental available torque source output.
Zhang teaches calculating an aggregate torque error based on the requested torque output and the supplemental available torque source output [[0026]; since it is likely that the actual torque outputs of the engines 66 and 70 will be at least slightly different, it should be appreciated that the resulting torque errors and, thus, the calculated engine speed adjustment values will also be different. Such calculations may be performed using one or more feedback loops].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Mizutani, further in view of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle torque control. The combination would increase stability of the vehicle at higher speeds [Zhang; [0033]; improved stability at higher speeds may be achieved by utilizing gain values 192 that decrease as engine speed values 194 increase. Further, improved operation may result from using gain values 192 that are selected based on both current engine speed and desired torque].
Claim 12: The combination of Shin and Thompson teach the system of claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 above is incorporated. Shin does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 12.
Zhang teaches the control system of Claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise determining the requested torque output based on a measured vehicle speed and a requested vehicle speed [[0029]; the controller 132 may receive as inputs a first engine speed 134, a first engine torque 136, a second engine torque 138, a second engine speed 140, and a desired engine speed value 142].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle torque control. The combination would increase stability of the vehicle at higher speeds [Zhang; [0033]; improved stability at higher speeds may be achieved by utilizing gain values 192 that decrease as engine speed values 194 increase. Further, improved operation may result from using gain values 192 that are selected based on both current engine speed and desired torque].
Claim 14: The combination of Shin and Thompson teach the system of claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 above is incorporated. Shin does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 14.
Mizutani teaches the control system of Claim 10, wherein activating the first supplement torque source from the plurality of torque sources includes activating an available one of the torque sources having a highest efficiency score [[0009]; the normal torque range may include an upper threshold of torque error and a lower threshold of torque error. The vehicle state judgment unit 110 may judge whether the normal torque range is exceeded for each of individual power sources].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Mizutani with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle torque control. The combination would increase operability and fuel efficiency [Mizutani; [0024]; the present driving power control apparatus for a four wheel drive vehicle can both ensure the vehicle of dynamics and achieve improved mileage].
Claim 2-3 & 5: The claims are directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claims 11-12 & 14, respectively. The cited portions of Shin in view of Thompson, further in view of Mizutani and Zhang used in the rejection of claims 11-12 & 14 teach the same steps to perform the method of claims 2-3 & 5, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-3 & 5 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claims 11-12 & 14 as outlined above.
Claim 4 & 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Thompson, further in view of Bischoff US 20050119805 A1 (hereinafter Bischoff).
Claim 13: The combination of Shin and Thompson teach the system of claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 above is incorporated. Shin does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 13.
Bischoff teaches the control system of Claim 10, wherein the first available torque source output includes at least one of an instantaneous current torque source output component [[0014]; the signals 30 received are, in particular, signals from a higher-level vehicle control system, the motor/generator units of hybrid drive 10, brake system 22, and from drive system 24. Provided as signals 30 are, inter alia, (...) an instantaneous battery current I.sub.Bat, a battery charging enable signal Bat.sub.charge, an instantaneous generator current I.sub.Gen (...)] and a maximum current torque source output component [[0035]; calculating generator current I.sub.g for each permissible speed ratio using the control maps of unit control 42, and by then storing the speed ratio at which the maximum generator current I.sub.g can be achieved as the speed ratio of optimum efficiency].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Bischoff with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle torque control. The combination would increase ease of use, milage, and reduce pollution [Bischoff; [0002]; he drive torques of the drive sources can be selectively supplied to a drive train of the vehicle according to a driver's input. This allows different drive options to be selected in known manner as a function of specific driving situations, these options being suitable, in particular, for improving the ride comfort and reducing the energy use, as well as for reducing the emission of pollutants].
Claim 4: The claim is directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim 13, respectively. The cited portions of Shin in view of Thompson, further in view of Bischoff used in the rejection of claim 13 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim 13 as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Yukawa (US 20200186058 A1) discloses A vehicle driving apparatus includes an inverter which drives a permanent magnet motor. The inverter includes a three-phase bridge circuit including a plurality of switch elements, a drive circuit connected to the three-phase bridge circuit, a control circuit connected to the drive circuit, and an abnormality detecting unit which detects abnormality of the inverter. The drive circuit includes a three-phase-short-circuit-forming circuit which causes three phases of the permanent magnet motor to form short circuits, an abnormality accepting terminal which accepts an abnormality signal output from the abnormality detecting unit, and a check terminal which accepts an active check signal for causing the three-phase-short-circuit-forming circuit to perform three-phase short circuit control.
Wrobel (US 20180154898 A1) discloses System, methods, and other embodiments described herein relate to preemptively adjusting operating parameters of a vehicle. In one embodiment, a method includes determining a control profile for the vehicle based, at least in part, on an environmental context and in response to identifying that the vehicle is located proximate to a roadway location for which the operating parameters are to be optimized. The environmental context characterizes at least current surroundings of the vehicle including the roadway location. The control profile indicates a predicted control input that is expected to be received through a driver input system for controlling the vehicle. The method includes adjusting the operating parameters of the vehicle according to the control profile to preemptively optimize the vehicle in anticipation of the predicted control input. The method includes controlling the vehicle according to the operating parameters upon receiving a driver control input through the driver input system.
Meyer et al. (US 20200269702 A1) discloses A vehicle propulsion system configured to generate wheel torque includes an engine arranged to output a first propulsion torque to a transmission and an electric motor arranged to output a second propulsion torque downstream of the transmission. The vehicle propulsion system also includes a controller programmed to, in response to detecting a lash crossing associated with one of the electric motor and the transmission, set a torque slew rate of the other one of the electric motor and transmission such that each of the electric motor and transmission undergoes lash crossings at different points in time.
Syed et al. (US 20200391723 A1) discloses Systems and methods for operating a vehicle that includes an engine and an electric machine are described. In one example, torque requests are aligned in time to compensate for a delay that may be caused by broadcasting one or more torque commands over a controller area network or another type of communication link. The torque requests may be aligned via delaying an engine torque request and predicting an electric machine torque.
Gebby et al. (US 20050023058 A1) discloses a method for accelerating a motor vehicle having multiple torque sources including a first torque source and a second torque source that each provide a torque output in order to simulate a single torque source engine. The method includes determining an acceleration request. The acceleration request is compared to a data store of target torque outputs associated with torque output from the single torque source engine. A target torque output based on the acceleration request is selected. The torque output from the first torque source is increased to the target torque output if the first torque source can meet the target torque output. The combined torque output from the first and second torque sources is increased to the target torque output if the first torque source cannot meet the target torque output.
Wang et al. (US 8676434 B2) discloses A vehicle includes electrical components, current sensors which determine current flowing through the electrical components, and a control system. The control system calculates and records error index values over an interval using the currents. The control system increments a first counter with every sample in the series, increments a second counter whenever a given error index value exceeds a calibrated high threshold, and decrements the second counter whenever the given error index value is less than a calibrated low threshold. A control action, e.g., recording a PASS or FAIL value, executes when either the absolute value of the second counter or the present value of the first counter reaches a corresponding limit or threshold. A method enhances the robustness of a hybrid vehicle torque security diagnostic using the control system. The vehicle and method use a signed X of Y debouncing or error signal processing method as noted above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony G Mora whose telephone number is (571)272-2306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8am-5pm PST, Alternating Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Kito R Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/A.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664