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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “kinetic energy recovery system” with “kinetic energy recovery system (KERS)”, i.e., defining the abbreviation “KERS” prior to its use in Lines 8, 9, 11, and 13, is suggested
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: punctuation in Paragraph 0019, Line 5. Replacing “internal combustion engine..” with “internal combustion engine.”, i.e., removing the second period, is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: spacing in Line 1. Replacing “starter ,” with “starter,” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “preferably above” in Lines 4 (two occurrences) and 5 (one occurrence); it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation (See MPEP 2173.05(c)). Removing “, preferably above 5 km/h, more preferably above 15 km/h, most preferably above 30 km/h” is suggested.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 15 recites “preferably a truck” in Lines 1-2; it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation (See MPEP 2173.05(c)). Further the term “heavy-duty vehicle” in Line 1 is not defined in the Specification or Claims, and is not a term in standard usage having a clear meaning. Removing “a heavy-duty vehicle, preferably” is suggested.
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.
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 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidemeyer et al. (US 4252208 A) (hereinafter “Heidemeyer”) in view of Greenwood (US 9102223 B2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Heidemeyer teaches a method for operating a vehicle, the vehicle comprising: an internal combustion engine [Heidemeyer Abstract: “A motor vehicle and a method of operation thereof. The method and apparatus relate to motor vehicles having an internal combustion engine for driving the vehicle and a flywheel coupled to the engine”], a wheel propulsion shaft, configured to be driven by the internal combustion engine [Heidemeyer Fig. 1, unnumbered member between second clutch 6 and transmission 4], wheels, configured to be driven by the wheel propulsion shaft [Heidemeyer Claim 1: “drive train coupled to said engine for driving the driving wheels of said vehicle”], and a kinetic energy recovery system, connected to the internal combustion engine and to the wheel propulsion shaft and configured to: recover and store kinetic energy of the vehicle as mechanical energy, and restore the stored energy by propelling the wheel propulsion shaft and/or by cranking the internal combustion engine, wherein the method comprises when the vehicle operates: when the vehicle is not stationary, recovering and storing kinetic energy of the vehicle in the kinetic energy recovery system as mechanical energy [Heidemeyer Paragraph 10: “during periods of deceleration, coasting, and stopping due to traffic, the flywheel, since it will be disconnected from the transmission and thus the slowing down or stopped drive wheels as well as the stopped engine, will continue to rotate freely. The flywheel will continue to store kinetic energy until it is again desired to start the engine”], when the vehicle is stationary, measuring an energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system and comparing the measured energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system to a predetermined high threshold value, so that the method comprises, if the energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system is above the predetermined high threshold value: stopping the internal combustion engine [Heidemeyer Abstract: “at operating conditions wherein both the engine does not drive the vehicle and the flywheel rotates above a predetermined minimum speed, the coupling between the engine and the flywheel is automatically interrupted and the engine is stopped”; Heidemeyer Paragraph 23: “during periods of deceleration, coasting, and stopping due to traffic the clutches are once more caused to be automatically disengaged and the engine is caused to turn off.”; Heidemeyer Paragraph 6: the signal of transmitter 19 is used for purposeful control of the actuation of the flywheel only when the flywheel is rotating above a predetermined minimum speed. The control device 15 then forwards a signal for actuation (disengagement) to the control valve 10 whenever both the signal generator 16 indicates that the accelerator pedal is in its released position and the signal generator 19 indicates a speed of the flywheel 3 which is above a predetermined value”], but does not teach propelling the vehicle exclusively by the kinetic energy recovery system.
Greenwood teaches propelling the wheel propulsion shaft exclusively by the kinetic energy recovery system [Greenwood Fig. 1; Paragraph 17: “The arrangement makes it possible to drive the motor vehicle through the transmission from the kinetic energy recovery system alone, with the engine disconnected.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of operating a vehicle of Heidemeyer to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, propelling the vehicle exclusively by the kinetic energy recovery system in view of Greenwood. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Heidemeyer and Greenwood because this would have achieved the desirable result of running the engine intermittently to improve efficiency, as recognized by Greenwood [Greenwood Paragraph 17: “Hence the engine need only be run intermittently and overall efficiency can be improved”].
Regarding Claim 2, Heidemeyer teaches propelling the vehicle but does not teach propelling the vehicle exclusively by the kinetic energy recovery system. Greenwood teaches the method of claim 1, wherein after propelling the wheel propulsion shaft exclusively with the kinetic energy recovery system, the method comprises propelling the wheel propulsion shaft with the internal combustion engine when the speed of the vehicle is above a predetermined speed threshold, preferably above 5 km/h, more preferably above 15 km/h, most preferably above 30 km/h [Greenwood Fig. 1, Reference Character 44; Greenwood “Summary” Paragraph 17: “The arrangement makes it possible to drive the motor vehicle through the transmission from the kinetic energy recovery system alone, with the engine disconnected.” Hence the engine need only be run intermittently and overall efficiency can be improved.”]; Greenwood “Description” Paragraph 17: “relatively low vehicle speeds over the cycle with gentle accelerations and decelerations and considerable time spent with the vehicle stationary and the engine at idle speed.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of operating a vehicle of Heidemeyer to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, propelling the vehicle exclusively by the kinetic energy recovery system in view of Greenwood. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Heidemeyer and Greenwood because this would have achieved the desirable result of propelling the vehicle exclusively by the kinetic energy recovery system, as recognized by Greenwood [Greenwood Paragraph 17: “Hence the engine need only be run intermittently and overall efficiency can be improved”].
Regarding Claim 3, Heidemeyer teaches an upstream clutch but does not teach propelling the vehicle exclusively with the kinetic energy recovery system. Greenwood teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle further comprises an upstream clutch operable between an uncoupling configuration, in which the kinetic energy recovery system is not connected to the internal combustion engine, and a coupling configuration, in which the kinetic energy recovery system is connected to the internal combustion engine, and wherein, before propelling the wheel propulsion shaft exclusively with the kinetic energy recovery system, the method further comprises operating the upstream clutch in the uncoupling configuration [Greenwood Fig. 1, Reference Character 44; Greenwood Paragraph 17: “The arrangement makes it possible to drive the motor vehicle through the transmission from the kinetic energy recovery system alone, with the engine disconnected.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of operating a vehicle of Heidemeyer to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, propelling the vehicle exclusively by the kinetic energy recovery system in view of Greenwood. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Heidemeyer and Greenwood because this would have achieved the desirable result of propelling the vehicle exclusively by the kinetic energy recovery system, as recognized by Greenwood [Greenwood Paragraph 17: “Hence the engine need only be run intermittently and overall efficiency can be improved.”].
Regarding Claim 4, Heidemeyer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises, if the energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system is below the predetermined high threshold value: when the vehicle is stationary, comparing the measured energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system to a predetermined medium threshold value, the predetermined medium threshold value being lower than the predetermined high threshold value, so that the method comprises, if the energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system is above the predetermined medium threshold value: stopping the internal combustion engine, then when the vehicle start is required, cranking the internal combustion engine, and propelling the wheel propulsion shaft with the kinetic energy recovery system and with the internal combustion engine [Heidemeyer Paragraph 8: “The interruption of the connection between the engine and the flywheel, which in a vehicle operated in accordance with this method may be by means of a controllable clutch interposed therebetween, moreover offers the possibility of easily starting the engine again after termination of the idling or coasting operating conditions, with the help of the flywheel which continues to rotate throughout.”; Heidemeyer Paragraph 10: “during periods of deceleration, coasting, and stopping due to traffic, the flywheel, since it will be disconnected from the transmission and thus the slowing down or stopped drive wheels as well as the stopped engine, will continue to rotate freely. The flywheel will continue to store kinetic energy until it is again desired to start the engine, in which case the driver need only depress the accelerator pedal to reconnect the engine and flywheel.”; Heidemeyer Paragraph 20: “after extended rotation in the doubly disengaged state, from reaching a decreased speed insufficient to restart the engine, the control device 15 is designed so that should the speed fall below a preset minimum, the flywheel is again connected with the engine 1”].
Regarding Claim 5, Heidemeyer teaches the method of claim 4, wherein when the energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system is above the predetermined medium threshold value and below the predetermined high threshold value and when the vehicle start is required, the internal combustion engine is cranked by the kinetic energy recovery system [Heidemeyer Abstract: “at operating conditions wherein both the engine does not drive the vehicle and the flywheel rotates above a predetermined minimum speed, the coupling between the engine and the flywheel is automatically interrupted and the engine is stopped. Upon termination of these operating conditions, the flywheel is re-coupled to the engine to restart the engine.”].
Regarding Claim 6, Heidemeyer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle further comprises a downstream clutch operable between an uncoupling configuration, in which the kinetic energy recovery system is not connected to the wheel propulsion shaft, and a coupling configuration, in which the kinetic energy recovery system is connected to the wheel propulsion shaft, and wherein the method further comprises, if the energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system is below the predetermined high threshold value and, if applicable, below the predetermined medium threshold value: when the vehicle is stationary, comparing the measured energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system to a predetermined low threshold value, the predetermined low threshold value being lower than the predetermined high threshold value and, if applicable, lower than the predetermined medium threshold value, so that the method comprises, if the energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system is above the predetermined low threshold value: stopping the internal combustion engine and operating the downstream clutch in the uncoupling configuration, then when the vehicle start is required, cranking the internal combustion engine with the kinetic energy recovery system, operating the downstream clutch in the coupling configuration and propelling the wheel propulsion shaft with the internal combustion engine [Heidemeyer Abstract: “The method and apparatus relate to motor vehicles having an internal combustion engine for driving the vehicle and a flywheel coupled to the engine for equalizing the non-uniformity of the engine output torque. In accordance with the invention, at operating conditions wherein both the engine does not drive the vehicle and the flywheel rotates above a predetermined minimum speed, the coupling between the engine and the flywheel is automatically interrupted and the engine is stopped. Upon termination of these operating conditions, the flywheel is re-coupled to the engine to restart the engine.”].
Regarding Claim 8, Heidemeyer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle further comprises a starter, configured to crank the internal combustion engine, and wherein the method further comprises, if the energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system is below the predetermined high threshold value, if applicable, below the predetermined medium threshold value, and, if applicable, below the predetermined low threshold value: when the vehicle is stationary, stopping the internal combustion engine, then when the vehicle start is required, cranking the internal combustion engine with the starter and propelling the wheel propulsion shaft with the internal combustion engine [Heidemeyer Paragraph 20: “In order to prevent the flywheel, after extended rotation in the doubly disengaged state, from reaching a decreased speed insufficient to restart the engine, the control device 15 is designed so that should the speed fall below a preset minimum, the flywheel is again connected with the engine 1 or is again caused to rotate at a higher speed by other driving means, e.g., the starter motor acting on the flywheel.”].
Regarding Claim 9, Heidemeyer teaches a control unit configured to perform the method of claim 1 [Heidemeyer Paragraph 3: “a control device 15 for delivery of control signals causing the engagement and disengagement of the clutch. The control device 15 processes several parameter signals delivered by signal generators and characterizing the operating condition of the automobile...signal generator 19 detects the speed of the flywheel 3 and generates a signal to the control device 15”; Heidemeyer Claim 1: “delivering a control signal from said signal generating means to said controlling means for automatically interrupting said coupling between said engine and said flywheel means and stopping said engine at operating conditions wherein both said engine is not providing a driving force and said flywheel means rotates above a predetermined minimum speed”; Heidemeyer Paragraph 9: “The interruption and re-establishment of the connection between the driving motor and the flywheel, as well as the stopping of the engine, may be controlled as a function of parameters characterizing the operating state of the vehicle. Suitable control quantities which may be used, for example, are the engine output, the rotational speed of the flywheel, the speed of the vehicle, the operating position of the transmission, or the inclination of the vehicle.”].
Regarding Claim 10, Heidemeyer teaches a vehicle comprising: an internal combustion engine, a wheel propulsion shaft, configured to be driven by the internal combustion engine, wheels, configured to be driven by the wheel propulsion shaft, a kinetic energy recovery system, connected to the internal combustion engine and to the wheel propulsion shaft and configured to: recover and store kinetic energy of the vehicle as mechanical energy, and restore the stored energy by propelling the wheel propulsion shaft and/or by cranking the internal combustion engine, a control unit, wherein the control unit is according to claim 9 [Heidemeyer Abstract: “The method and apparatus relate to motor vehicles having an internal combustion engine for driving the vehicle and a flywheel coupled to the engine for equalizing the non-uniformity of the engine output torque. In accordance with the invention, at operating conditions wherein both the engine does not drive the vehicle and the flywheel rotates above a predetermined minimum speed, the coupling between the engine and the flywheel is automatically interrupted and the engine is stopped. Upon termination of these operating conditions, the flywheel is re-coupled to the engine to restart the engine.”].
Regarding Claim 11, Heidemeyer teaches the vehicle of claim 10, further comprising an upstream clutch operable between an uncoupling configuration, in which the kinetic energy recovery system is not connected to the internal combustion engine, and a coupling configuration, in which the kinetic energy recovery system is connected to the internal combustion engine [Heidemeyer Fig. 1, Reference Characters 7 and 3].
Regarding Claim 12, Heidemeyer teaches the vehicle of claim 10, further comprising an upstream clutch operable between an uncoupling configuration, in which the kinetic energy recovery system is not connected to the internal combustion engine, and a coupling configuration, in which the kinetic energy recovery system is connected to the internal combustion engine [Heidemeyer Fig. 1, Reference Characters 6 and 3].
Regarding Claim 13, Heidemeyer teaches the vehicle of claim 10, wherein the vehicle further comprises a starter, configured to crank the internal combustion engine [Heidemeyer Paragraph 14: “On the outer periphery of the flywheel housing 32 a toothing 34 is provided for engagement of the pinion, not shown, of a starter motor.”].
Regarding Claim 14, Heidemeyer teaches the vehicle of claim 10, wherein the kinetic energy recovery system comprises a flywheel [Heidemeyer Abstract: “The method and apparatus relate to motor vehicles having an internal combustion engine for driving the vehicle and a flywheel coupled to the engine”].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidemeyer et al. (US 4252208 A) (hereinafter “Heidemeyer”) in view of Greenwood (US 9102223 B2) and further in view of Beale (US 4171029 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Heidemeyer and Greenwood teaches a method for operating a vehicle but does not teach keeping the internal combustion engine running. Beale teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises, if the energy level stored in the kinetic energy recovery system is below the predetermined high threshold value, if applicable, below the predetermined medium threshold value, and, if applicable, below the predetermined low threshold value: when the vehicle is stationary, keeping the internal combustion engine running, then when the vehicle start is required, propelling the wheel propulsion shaft with the internal combustion engine [Beale Paragraph 12: “selectively operating the coupling means such that in use the arrangement can assume any one of the following modes, namely, an engine only mode in which the engine alone is connected to the vehicle drive shaft, a flywheel only mode in which the flywheel alone is connected to the vehicle drive shaft, and a flywheel plus engine mode in which both the flywheel and the engine are connected to the vehicle drive shaft, the mode selection permitting power flow between the vehicle drive shaft and, the engine, the flywheel, or the flywheel plus engine”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of operating a vehicle of the combination of Heidemeyer and Greenwood to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, keeping the engine running in view of Beale. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Heidemeyer, Greenwood, and Beale because this would have achieved the desirable results of reducing cost, safety hazards maintenance, as recognized by Beale [Beale Paragraph 11: “it becomes possible to achieve the potential benefits of a high energy-density flywheel using only a relatively low energy-density flywheel, but without the attendant disadvantages of cost, safety hazards, high gyroscopic forces, increased maintenance and inefficiency on short vehicle journeys.”].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidemeyer et al. (US 4252208 A) (hereinafter “Heidemeyer”) in view of Greenwood (US 9102223 B2) and further in view of Smith (GB 2464257 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Heidemeyer and Greenwood teaches a vehicle but does not explicitly teach a heavy-duty truck. Smith teaches the vehicle of claim 10, wherein the vehicle is a heavy-duty vehicle, preferably a truck [Smith Page 1, Line 27: “The present invention provides flywheel regenerative braking for large trucks”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of operating a vehicle of the combination of Heidemeyer and Greenwood to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a truck in view of Smith. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Heidemeyer, Greenwood, and Smith because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing effective energy capture, increased efficiency, and increased controllability, as recognized by Smith [Smith Page 2, Lines 11-14: “provide two significant functions safely and co-axially -1) effective energy capture and recovery for traffic related speed changes; and 2) a geared neutral facility to provide more efficient and controllable low speed manoeuvring.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613