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 .
In response to amendment filed 12/17/2025, claims 1,7, and 10 have been amended. Claims 19-22 are new. Claims 2 and 11 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-14, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Treharne et al. (US 20140114512 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Treharne teaches, A comprehensive consumption control system for a plug-in hybrid electric (PHEV) vehicle having an electrified powertrain including an electric motor and an internal combustion engine, the comprehensive consumption control system comprising: (See abstract, paragraphs 12-15, PHEV vehicle having electric motor and internal combustion engine)
a user interface configured to receive a user-selected comprehensive consumption mode from a plurality of different comprehensive consumption modes for the electrified powertrain, each comprehensive consumption mode specifying a different distributed usage of power sources for the electric motor and the engine, wherein the power source for the electric motor is state of charge (SOC) in a battery system and the power source for the engine is fuel in a fuel system, and wherein none of the plurality of different comprehensive consumption modes for the PHEV vehicle indicates initial full usage of the battery system SOC and the electric motor followed by subsequent usage of the fuel and the engine; and a controller in communication with the user interface and configured to: receive, from the user interface, the user-selected comprehensive consumption mode for the electrified powertrain; and control the electrified powertrain based on the user-selected comprehensive consumption mode such that the electric motor and the engine use the battery system SOC and the fuel according to the distributed usage specified by the user-selected comprehensive consumption mode. (See paragraphs 3-4, 22-23, vehicle system controller (VSC) 68 that performs the coordination control in this power split powertrain system. Also see paragraph 23, The VSC 68, which includes an electronic control unit (ECU), is connected to or integrated with a human-machine interface (HMI) 70, or user interface. The user interface 70 may include a user input and a display. The user input may be touch screen and/or a series of tactile buttons. The display may be a screen and/or gauges for displaying information to the user…paragraph 28, An EV button 72, or other user input of the user interface 70, provides for user selection of PHEV operation using electrical energy from the battery in an EV mode, resulting in a user selected EV mode. In the user selected EV mode, the PHEV operates in a charge depletion (CD) mode and the engine 56 may be disabled…The EV button 72 may be incorporated into the VSC 68 and the human machine interface 70 to allow the user to manually select between EV, HEV, and automatic operational modes for the vehicle. The button 72 allows the user to pre-determine and control the vehicle operation mode among EV, HEV, and automatic (VSC 68 selected) modes for a charge cycle or a key cycle. Lastly see fig. 1, 3-4, paragraphs 12-13, 48, fuel, SOC, and none of the modes are designed so that SOC level is below the predefined charge sustaining level 28))
In regards to claim 3, Treharne teaches the comprehensive consumption control system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control the electrified powertrain based on navigation information for a current trip of the PHEV vehicle. (See paragraph 17, the user may start by requesting an HEV driving mode 28 (battery charge sustaining at a high SOC off-charge) in the initial section of the trip. This saves the battery electric energy 21 such that the user can later switch to an EV driving mode 24 at another location where EV operation of the vehicle is desirable. The way claim is written, “based on navigation information for a current trip of the PHEV vehicle” encompasses user instruction [to enable controller to control the electrified powertrain] based on his/her mental judgement (e.g. navigation information where user decides to proceed with HEV driving mode during initial section of the trip and other modes at another location))
In regards to claim 4, Treharne teaches the comprehensive consumption control system of claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of different comprehensive consumption modes is a minimum monetary cost for the usage of the power sources. (See paragraph 14, In a Charge Depleting (CD) mode 20 the battery electric energy 21 may be primarily used to propel the vehicle. The engine assists the vehicle drive power supply only in certain driving conditions or at excessive drive power requests during the basic charge depleting mode. One characteristic in the CD mode 20 is that the electric motor consumes more energy from the battery 21 than can be regenerated…paragraph 13, The power management of the PHEV allocates the drive power demand of the vehicle to one or both of the two energy sources in order to achieve an improved fuel economy… it may be desirable for PHEVs to use as much pre-saved battery electric (grid) energy as possible before the next charge event (when the vehicle is "plugged-in"). To increase fuel economy, the relatively inexpensive, grid-supplied electric energy may be preferentially used to save as much gasoline fuel as possible. In Treharne, charge depleting mode that mostly uses electrical energy is used, which can minimize cost since fuel cost is more expensive)
In regards to claim 5, Treharne teaches the comprehensive consumption control system of claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of different comprehensive consumption modes is a minimum emissions cost for the usage of the power sources. (See paragraph 14, In a Charge Depleting (CD) mode 20 the battery electric energy 21 may be primarily used to propel the vehicle. The engine assists the vehicle drive power supply only in certain driving conditions or at excessive drive power requests during the basic charge depleting mode. One characteristic in the CD mode 20 is that the electric motor consumes more energy from the battery 21 than can be regenerated…paragraph 13, The power management of the PHEV allocates the drive power demand of the vehicle to one or both of the two energy sources in order to achieve an improved fuel economy… it may be desirable for PHEVs to use as much pre-saved battery electric (grid) energy as possible before the next charge event (when the vehicle is "plugged-in"). To increase fuel economy, the relatively inexpensive, grid-supplied electric energy may be preferentially used to save as much gasoline fuel as possible. Saving much gasoline fuel as possible also means minimizing emissions cost)
Claims 10, 12-14 are similar in scope to claims 1, 3-5, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
In regards to claim 19, Treharne teaches the comprehensive consumption control system of claim 1, The comprehensive consumption control system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of different comprehensive consumption modes defines at least some periods of simultaneous usage of both (i) the electric motor and the SOC in the battery system and (ii) the engine and the fuel in the fuel system. (See paragraph 30, The algorithm 100 causes the engine 56 to be enabled such that the vehicle can operate in a temporary hybrid mode of operation…paragraph 32, The engine 56 is now enabled, but will only be operated as necessary, i.e. when power demand exceeds what the battery and electric machine are capable of delivering.)
Claim 21 is similar in scope to claim 19, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treharne et al. (US 20140114512 A1) in view of Hafner; James Lee et al. (US 7013205 B1)
In regards to claim 6, Treharne teaches the comprehensive consumption control system of claim 1.
Treharne teaches plurality of different consumption modes (see fig. 1 and associated paragraphs), however, does not specifically disclose, …comprehensive consumption modes is a minimum energy cost for the usage of the power sources.
Hafner further discloses …comprehensive consumption modes is a minimum energy cost for the usage of the power sources. (See col. 3, lines 25-36, cost minimization is determined by a computer, using as data inputs at least the following: itinerary data (including, but not limited to, original and present location of the vehicle, as well as the destination and/or the route to be taken); available battery charge; operational data (including, but not limited to, performance specification data, vehicle driving history data, and/or other operational data); availability of recharge facilities en route or at the destination; cost of energy from available external electric power sources; cost of energy from onboard consumable fuel powered means; and/or other data. Also see fig. 3, step 321, calculate optimized consumption ratio between electric charge and consumable fuel…col. 5, lines 45-60, to compute an optimal usage profile for the vehicle's electric and conventional fuel in order to minimize the energy cost of the trip. The determination of the computer 100 could be output either directly to vehicle power system components 400 or to the in-vehicle audio and/or visual display, where it could be received by an operator who could then take appropriate action. Such operator action might include, but would not be limited to, an operator input instruction 310 to cause the computer to output the determined optimal energy usage profile directly to the vehicle power system components 400.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Treharne to further comprise system taught by Hafner because implementing a driving mode that minimizes overall energy cost by dynamically blending power sources based on various factors can enhance consumer value and satisfaction (Hafner col. 10, lines 25-40, col. 3, lines 4-25).
In regards to claim 7, Treharne-Hafner teaches the comprehensive consumption control system of claim 6, wherein the energy cost for the usage of the fuel and the engine considers both operation of the engine as a propulsive torque generator for propulsion of the PHEV vehicle and as an SOC/current generator for recharging the battery system. (See col. 3, lines 25-36, cost minimization is determined by a computer, using as data inputs at least the following: itinerary data (including, but not limited to, original and present location of the vehicle, as well as the destination and/or the route to be taken); available battery charge; operational data (including, but not limited to, performance specification data, vehicle driving history data, and/or other operational data); availability of recharge facilities en route or at the destination; cost of energy from available external electric power sources; cost of energy from onboard consumable fuel powered means; and/or other data. Also see fig. 3, step 321, calculate optimized consumption ratio between electric charge and consumable fuel…col. 5, lines 45-60, to compute an optimal usage profile for the vehicle's electric and conventional fuel in order to minimize the energy cost of the trip. The determination of the computer 100 could be output either directly to vehicle power system components 400 or to the in-vehicle audio and/or visual display, where it could be received by an operator who could then take appropriate action. Such operator action might include, but would not be limited to, an operator input instruction 310 to cause the computer to output the determined optimal energy usage profile directly to the vehicle power system components 400.)
In regards to claim 8, Treharne teaches the comprehensive consumption control system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different comprehensive consumption modes include: (i) a minimum monetary cost for the usage of the power sources; (ii) a minimum emissions cost for the usage of the power sources; (Claim does not explicitly recite that (i)-(iii) are three distinct consumption modes. Please see rejection of claims 4-5 set forth above)
Treharne does not specifically teach, and (iii) a minimum energy cost for the usage of the power sources, however, this limitation is further disclosed in Hafner similar to rejection of claims 6-7 above, therefore, this limitation is rejected under similar rationale.
In regards to claim 9, Treharne teaches the comprehensive consumption control system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different comprehensive consumption modes consist of: (i) a minimum monetary cost for the usage of the power sources; (ii) a minimum emissions cost for the usage of the power sources; (Claim does not explicitly recite that (i)-(iii) are three distinct consumption modes. Please see rejection of claims 4-5 set forth above)
Treharne does not specifically teach, and (iii) a minimum energy cost for the usage of the power sources, however, this limitation is further disclosed in Hafner similar to rejection of claims 6-7 above, therefore, this limitation is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 15-18 are similar in scope to claims 6-9, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, applicant argues, “In contrast, the Treharne reference only discusses the user selection of a single HEV mode”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Treharne discloses in paragraph 28, “The EV button 72 may be incorporated into the VSC 68 and the human machine interface 70 to allow the user to manually select between EV, HEV, and automatic operational modes for the vehicle.” Also fig. 3, Step 104, 108, 112, indicate user selected EV and HEV mode.
Applicant further argues, “
PNG
media_image1.png
146
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in fig. 1, each modes do not fall below charge sustaining level 28 to fully deplete the battery.
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 JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668