DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is drafted in response to Amendment and Response filed 10/02/2025. Claims 1-5 are pending. Claims 1-5 are rejected as cited below. This action is made FINAL.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Specification Objection
Examiner withdraws the title objection in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Claim Interpretation
Examiner withdraws the invocation of 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner withdraws all 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a control apparatus for a hybrid vehicle. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A control apparatus for a hybrid electric vehicle including an engine, an electric motor, and a battery that supplies and receives an electric power to and from the electric motor, the control apparatus comprising a central processing unit configured to:
determine whether unmanned autonomous driving is being executed;
upon determination that unmanned autonomous driving is being executed, determine whether there is any passenger who rides on the vehicle at a next destination;
upon determination that there is a passenger who rides on the vehicle at the next destination, acquire a travel distance from a current point to the next destination, and acquire a current state of charge of the vehicle, and calculate a required charging power using a priority execution map; and
upon determination that unmanned autonomous driving is not being executed, or upon determination that there is not the passenger who rides on the vehicle at the next destination, calculate the required charging power using a fuel-efficiency optimum execution map.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
“determine whether unmanned autonomous driving is being executed” in the context of this claim may encompass a person observing a vehicle and forming a simple judgement.
“determine whether there is any passenger who rides on the vehicle at a next destination” in the context of this claim may encompass a person viewing a pickup schedule on a screen or sheet of paper and forming a simple judgement.
“calculate a required charging power using a priority execution map” in the context of this claim may encompass a person solving a simple equation using observed information and specific constants which relate to passenger comfort.
“calculate the required charging power using a fuel-efficiency optimum execution map” in the context of this claim may encompass a person solving a simple equation using observed information and specific constants which relate to fuel efficiency and maximum charge amounts.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A control apparatus for a hybrid electric vehicle including an engine, an electric motor, and a battery that supplies and receives an electric power to and from the electric motor, the control apparatus comprising a central processing unit configured to:
determine whether unmanned autonomous driving is being executed;
upon determination that unmanned autonomous driving is being executed, determine whether there is any passenger who rides on the vehicle at a next destination;
upon determination that there is a passenger who rides on the vehicle at the next destination, acquire a travel distance from a current point to the next destination, and acquire a current state of charge of the vehicle, and calculate a required charging power using a priority execution map; and
upon determination that unmanned autonomous driving is not being executed, or upon determination that there is not the passenger who rides on the vehicle at the next destination, calculate the required charging power using a fuel-efficiency optimum execution map.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquire a travel distance from a current point to the next destination” and “acquire a current state of charge of the vehicle”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely use a computer (central processing unit) to perform the process. These steps which acquire data are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Secondly, the “central processing unit” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The control apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determination and calculation steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05).
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware components to perform the determination and calculation steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquire a travel distance from a current point to the next destination” and “acquire a current state of charge of the vehicle”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim 2, however, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by performing NV suppression control during execution of the unmanned driving. Applicant specification ¶ [0006] describes NV suppression control as “perform an NV suppression control in which a required charging power for charging the battery with the electric power generated by the electric motor using a power of the engine, is set to a larger value during an unmanned driving in the autonomous driving control than during a manned driving in the autonomous driving control.” Examiner finds improving the quietness of the vehicle during manned operation to be a practical application of the judicial exception. See specification ¶ [0041] “the electronic control apparatus 90 increases the load of the engine 12 during execution of the unmanned autonomous driving to increase the state of charge SOC prior to start of the manned autonomous driving, thereby extending the period in which the BEV driving mode can be established and improving the quietness.”
Thus, claim 2 is eligible under 35 USC 101. Additionally, claims 3-5 are eligible in view of their dependency on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahito (JP 2019-034736, PE2E translation attached to OA; hereafter Takahito) in view of Park (US Pub. 2020/0327317 A1; hereafter Park).
Takahito was cited in the IDS dated 09/04/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Takahito teaches:
A control apparatus (At least Abstract “a control apparatus”) for a hybrid electric vehicle (vehicle Ve) including an engine (engine (ENG) 1), an electric motor (a first motor (MG1) 2), and a battery (battery 46) that supplies and receives an electric power to and from the electric motor, the control apparatus comprising a central processing unit (controller 7) configured to:
determine whether unmanned autonomous driving is being executed (At least page 9, ¶ 2: “First, it is determined whether or not there is a passenger in the vehicle (step S101). That is, it is determined whether the vehicle Ve is in a manned automatic driving state or an unmanned automatic driving state.”);
upon determination that there is a passenger who rides on the vehicle at the next destination, acquire a travel distance from a current point to the next destination (At least page 6, ¶ 3: “The navigation system 15 is configured to calculate the travel route of the vehicle Ve based on the position information of the vehicle Ve measured by the GPS receiver 12 and the map information of the map database 14.”), and acquire a current state of charge of the vehicle (At least page 6, ¶ 1: “Battery sensor that detects the remaining battery charge (SOC),”), and calculate a required charging power using a priority execution map (At least page 14, ¶ 2: “when the vehicle Ve travels in HV by manned automatic driving, the vehicle lower limit threshold SOCmin is set to the second lower limit threshold SOCmin2, so that the vehicle Ve can easily shift from the HV mode to the EV mode. Therefore, the EV mode is preferentially selected when the vehicle Ve travels in manned automatic driving. As a result, it is possible to suppress vibrations and driving sounds resulting from the operation of the engine 1 and improve the ride comfort and comfort felt by the passenger.” Applicant specification ¶ [0046] states “The NV priority execution map is a map for prioritizing an improvement of the NV performance over an improvement of the fuel efficiency performance …”. As understood by Examiner, a “priority execution map” is merely a charging method in which NV suppression is prioritized over fuel economy. Setting the SOC to SOCmin2 is analogous to calculating a required charging power in view of NV suppression prioritization.); and
upon determination that unmanned autonomous driving is not being executed (At least page 12, ¶ 3: “when the operation or operation of the device provided in the passenger compartment has been operated, that is, there is a passenger in the vehicle and the vehicle Ve is in a manned automatic driving state, the above-described step S201 is positive …”. A manned automatic driving state is analogous to unmanned autonomous driving not being executed, as claimed by the Applicant.), or upon determination that there is not the passenger who rides on the vehicle at the next destination, calculate the required charging power using a fuel-efficiency optimum execution map (At least page 13, ¶ 3: “When the process proceeds to step S209, the vehicle Ve is in a state of manned automatic driving … in step S209, the HV mode is selected even when the vehicle Ve is in a manned automatic driving state. When the vehicle Ve travels at a high speed in the HV mode, the engine 1 can be driven efficiently and the fuel efficiency of the vehicle Ve can be improved. In addition, the battery can be charged during that time, and the SOC of the battery can be maintained at an appropriate value.” Maintaining a SOC of a battery at an appropriate level involves knowing the required charging power.).
Takahito does not teach:
determine whether there is any passenger who rides on the vehicle at a next destination.
However, Park, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
upon determination that unmanned autonomous driving is being executed, determine whether there is any passenger who rides on the vehicle at a next destination (At least ¶ [0036] “The controller 202 may be configured to determine whether there are any of the waiting passengers 152 and 154 intending to board at the next stop 150.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahito with Park. This modification would have been obvious as both Takahito and Park contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (autonomous vehicle control) and Takahito page 14, ¶ 2 notes that “…the EV mode is preferentially selected when the vehicle Ve travels in manned automatic driving. As a result, it is possible to suppress vibrations and driving sounds resulting from the operation of the engine 1 and improve the ride comfort and comfort felt by the passenger.” Introducing the determination of upcoming passengers, as taught by park, helps the Takahito system run more efficiently. As it is a goal of Takahito to improve the ride comfort of the passenger, the system would benefit from knowing when a passenger will be boarding in the future. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to program the Takahito system to transition to EV mode before a passenger even boards the vehicle. This may result in increased passenger comfort.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takahito and Park teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, Takahito further teaches wherein the central processing unit is configured, upon determination that the unmanned driving is to be switched to the manned driving in the autonomous driving control (At least page 16 ¶ 7: “When the process proceeds to step S306, the vehicle Ve is in a state where the vehicle Ve has shifted from the unmanned automatic driving to the manned automatic driving due to the person getting in the vehicle.”), to perform an NV suppression control during execution of the unmanned driving until the manned driving is started (At least page 17 ¶ 6: “the HV mode is preferentially selected because the vehicle Ve is in an unattended automatic driving state. When the vehicle Ve travels HV by unmanned automatic driving, the battery can be charged during that time, and the SOC of the battery can be maintained at an appropriate value.” HV mode is a form of NV suppression control.).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahito, in view of Park, in further view of Ford et al. (US Pub. 2020/0010089 A1; hereafter Ford).
Ford was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Takahito and Park teaches the control apparatus according to claim 2.
The combination of Takahito and Park does not teach:
wherein the central processing unit is configured, during execution of the unmanned driving, to calculate the required charging power based on (i) a travel distance from the current point to a point at which the unmanned driving is switched to the manned driving and (ii) a current remaining charge amount of the battery.
However, Ford, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the central processing unit is configured, during execution of the unmanned driving, to calculate the required charging power based on (i) a travel distance from the current point to a point at which the unmanned driving is switched to the manned driving (At least ¶ [0096] “a more aggressive approach may be applied for charging a system battery when operating the hybrid vehicle in an engine mode so that the vehicle can be operated in an electric mode for a longer duration or a longer distance during a later part of the drive cycle” One skilled in the art would recognize that the charging system may be programmed to provide a specific amount of charge to the battery in order for the vehicle to travel a specific distance.) and (ii) a current remaining charge amount of the battery (At least ¶ [0040] “Control system 190 may identify and/or control the amount of electrical energy stored at the energy storage device, which may be referred to as the state of charge (SOC).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Takahito and Park with Ford. This modification would have been obvious as both the Takahito/Park combination and Ford contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle control) and page 13, ¶ 3 of Takahito notes “the engine 1 can be driven efficiently and the fuel efficiency of the vehicle Ve can be improved.” Introducing Ford to Takahito may help further improve the fuel economy of the vehicle. One skilled in the art would recognize that obtaining a current remaining charge of the battery my help increase fuel economy in hybrid vehicles which use a gasoline generator to recharge the battery. A battery with a current state of charge (SOC) above a threshold required to reach the current destination may forgo recharging using the gasoline powered engine in lieu of a wall charger stationed at the destination. This will help improve the fuel economy of the hybrid vehicle as less fuel is burned to recharge the battery.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takahito and Park teaches the control apparatus according to claim 2. Ford further teaches wherein the central processing unit is configured, during execution of the manned driving, or during execution of the unmanned driving without determining that the unmanned driving is to be switched to the manned driving, to control the engine such that a remaining charge amount of the battery is within a predetermined remaining charge amount range and such that an energy efficiency of the vehicle is optimized (At least ¶ [0160] “the HEV battery may be charged more aggressively as the occupancy level decreases while the vehicle is in the autonomous mode. This allows the vehicle to be better prepared for more electric mode operation (EV operation) to support a forthcoming passenger transport mission.” And ¶ [0161] “the engine may be restarted responsive to a drop in the battery's state of charge (SOC) below a threshold SOC. In another example, the engine may be restarted if the driver torque demand is larger than can be met only via the electric motor. If engine restart conditions are not met, then the method returns to 1220 to continue using motor torque to propel the engine. Else, if engine restart conditions are met, then at 1224, the method includes restarting the engine via bump start without using energy from starter motor, BISG, or HEV battery.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Takahito, Park, and Ford teaches the control apparatus according to claim 4. Ford further teaches wherein the central processing unit is configured, upon determination that the unmanned driving is to be switched to the manned driving, to perform the NV suppression control such that the remaining charge amount upon start of the manned driving becomes a value larger than an upper limit value of the predetermined remaining charge amount range (At least ¶ [0096] “a more aggressive approach may be applied for charging a system battery when operating the hybrid vehicle in an engine mode so that the vehicle can be operated in an electric mode for a longer duration or a longer distance during a later part of the drive cycle” One skilled in the art would recognize that the charging system may be programmed to provide a specific amount of charge to the battery which may be greater than an “upper limit value”. This may help alleviate range anxiety for the driver of the vehicle. Examiner interprets an “upper limit value” as 85% SOC, which is a common maximum SOC as known in the art.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668