DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Pending
1-20
35 U.S.C. 112
2, 4-9, 13, 15-20
35 U.S.C. 101
1-20
35 U.S.C. 102
1, 3, 10-12, 14
35 U.S.C. 103
2, 4-9, 13, 15-20
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), regarding Application No. KR 10-2021-0144773, filed on 10/27/2021. Applicant’s indication of National Stage information based on PCT/KR2022/016588 filed 10/27/2022 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. The equations provided in the specification (and claims) are not clear enough to be read easily. For example, Applicant’s specification provides:
Page 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
35
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
77
200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Page 16:
PNG
media_image3.png
76
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
These equations are incredibly difficult to read. The rest of the provided specification provided more equations that are difficult to discern and thus need amending for clarification. The variables provided in the specification are clear to read and do not require fixing. However, as stated above, all of the equations provided in the specification (and claims) require appropriate correction.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 12-13, 15-16, 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities (listed below in parts (A), (B), and (C)).
The claims include equations that are difficult to read and need further clarification. The claims and equations are as follows:
Claim 2.
PNG
media_image4.png
52
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 4.
PNG
media_image5.png
3
385
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
3
385
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 5.
PNG
media_image6.png
85
246
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 7.
PNG
media_image7.png
1
199
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1
199
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 8.
PNG
media_image8.png
88
258
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 13.
PNG
media_image9.png
40
371
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 15.
PNG
media_image10.png
13
417
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
13
417
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 16.
PNG
media_image11.png
89
250
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 18.
PNG
media_image12.png
15
292
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
15
292
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 19.
PNG
media_image13.png
93
261
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
These equations are incredibly difficult to read and thus need amending for clarification.
Claim 12 recites: “transmits the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to the control system of the hybrid vehicle.” This should be amended to read: “transmits the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to a control system of the hybrid vehicle.”
The claims that recite equations and variables introduce the equations and variables with “the” rather than “a” or “an”. An example of this is in claim 4, where the claim recites:
“the instantaneous fuel amount model equation is […] and the battery power model equation is […] where the motor power (Pm) is determined by the difference between the requested power (P) and the fuel power output (Pf), wm is the motor speed, wf is the engine speed”.
This adds to the indefiniteness of the claims, which is addressed below by Examiner. However, Examiner wants to make special note of this in the Objections section as well to emphasize the importance of amending these issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an average requested power calculation unit, a fuel power output calculation unit, a battery-based power calculation unit, and a communication unit in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s specification (US 2024/0278768 A1 version) discloses the corresponding structure for an average requested power calculation unit, a fuel power output calculation unit, a battery-based power calculation unit, and a communication unit in paragraphs [0075]-[0076] (units are of the control device); paragraphs [0022]-[0023] (control system has processor, memory, non-transitory storage medium), and FIG. 7 (overall system structure).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 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.
Claims 2, 4-9, 13, 15-20 are 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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 all recite equations without properly introducing or defining the variables within the equations. As such, each and every equation and variable are poorly defined, and lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations due to a lack of definition. The specification provided by Applicant describes the variables and equations, but these elements are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. As such, the claims recite limitations which fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is regarded as the invention, and for which there is insufficient antecedent basis. Thus, these claims are rejected as being indefinite.
Claims 4-9 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Claims 15-20 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Examiner also notes that, in their current state, the claims introduce the equations and variables with “the” rather than “a” or “an”, which adds to the lack of antecedent basis, and as such should be addressed carefully by Applicant when amending the claims. An example of this can be found in claim 4, where the claim recites “the instantaneous fuel amount model equation is […] and the battery power model equation is […] where the motor power (Pm) is determined by the difference between the requested power (P) and the fuel power output (Pf), wm is the motor speed, wf is the engine speed, […]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
“A power control method considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle, comprising:
(a) receiving a current requested power value from the hybrid vehicle;
(b) calculating an average requested power from the received plurality of requested power values;
(c) calculating an optimal fuel power output command value that minimizes an average equivalent fuel consumption for the average requested power;
(d) calculating a battery-based power command from the optimal fuel power output command calculated in step (c) and the requested power value; and
(e) transmitting the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to a control system of the hybrid vehicle.”
These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the mind, but for the recitation of “a hybrid vehicle; (a) receiving a current requested power value from the hybrid vehicle; (e) transmitting the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to a control system of the hybrid vehicle”. That is, other than reciting the underlined and italicized limitations above, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind.
For example, a human can, in their mind, perform a power control method considering the transient characteristics, comprising: calculating an average requested power from the received plurality of requested power values; calculating an optimal fuel power output command value that minimizes an average equivalent fuel consumption for the average requested power; calculating a battery-based power command from the optimal fuel power output command calculated previously and the requested power value.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements underlined and italicized above. The a hybrid vehicle is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely link(s) the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The receiving step and transmitting step is/are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, manipulation, and transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of a hybrid vehicle is/are no more than mere generic linking of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element of receiving step and transmitting step is/are mere data gathering, manipulation, and transmission, and is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and thus is/are no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and see OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Thus, the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim contains ineligible subject matter.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
“An apparatus for performing power control considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions stored in the at least one memory cause the at least one processor to perform:
(a) receiving a current requested power value from the hybrid vehicle;
(b) calculating an average requested power from the received plurality of requested power values;
(c) calculating an optimal fuel power output command value that minimizes an average equivalent fuel consumption for the average requested power;
(d) calculating a battery-based power command from the optimal fuel power output command calculated in step (c) and the requested power value; and
(e) transmitting the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to a control system of the hybrid vehicle.”
These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the mind, but for the recitation of “an apparatus for performing power control considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions stored in the at least one memory cause the at least one processor to perform: (a) receiving a current requested power value from the hybrid vehicle; (e) transmitting the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to a control system of the hybrid vehicle”. That is, other than reciting the underlined and italicized limitations above, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind.
For example, a human can, in their mind, calculate an average requested power from the received plurality of requested power values; calculate an optimal fuel power output command value that minimizes an average equivalent fuel consumption for the average requested power; calculate a battery-based power command from the optimal fuel power output command calculated previously and the requested power value.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements underlined and italicized above. The an apparatus for performing power control, a hybrid vehicle, at least one processor, and at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely link(s) the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The receiving step and transmitting step is/are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, manipulation, and transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of an apparatus for performing power control, a hybrid vehicle, at least one processor, and at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions is/are no more than mere generic linking of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element of receiving step and transmitting step is/are mere data gathering, manipulation, and transmission, and is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and thus is/are no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and see OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Thus, the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim contains ineligible subject matter.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
“A computer program for performing power control considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle,
stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and comprising instructions that cause a processor to perform:
(a) receiving a current requested power value from the hybrid vehicle;
(b) calculating an average requested power from the received plurality of requested power values;
(c) calculating an optimal fuel power output command value that minimizes an average equivalent fuel consumption for the average requested power;
(d) calculating a battery-based power command from the optimal fuel power output command calculated in step (c) and the requested power value; and
(e) transmitting the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to a control system of the hybrid vehicle.”
These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the mind, but for the recitation of “a computer program for performing power control considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle, stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and comprising instructions that cause a processor to perform: (a) receiving a current requested power value from the hybrid vehicle; (e) transmitting the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to a control system of the hybrid vehicle”. That is, other than reciting the underlined and italicized limitations above, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind.
For example, a human can, in their mind, calculate an average requested power from the received plurality of requested power values; calculate an optimal fuel power output command value that minimizes an average equivalent fuel consumption for the average requested power; calculate a battery-based power command from the optimal fuel power output command calculated previously and the requested power value.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements underlined and italicized above. The a computer program for performing power control, a hybrid vehicle, a non-transitory storage medium, and instructions for a processor is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely link(s) the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The receiving step and transmitting step is/are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, manipulation, and transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of a computer program for performing power control, a hybrid vehicle, a non-transitory storage medium, and instructions for a processor is/are no more than mere generic linking of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element of receiving step and transmitting step is/are mere data gathering, manipulation, and transmission, and is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and thus is/are no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and see OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Thus, the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim contains ineligible subject matter.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
“An apparatus for power control considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle, comprising:
an average requested power calculation unit that calculates an average requested power for the requested power value continuously received from a control unit of the hybrid vehicle;
a fuel power output calculation unit that calculates an optimal fuel power output command value that minimizes an average equivalent fuel consumption for the average requested power value;
a battery-based power calculation unit that calculates a battery-based power from the requested power value and the optimal fuel power output; and
a communication unit that continuously receives the requested power value from the control unit of the hybrid vehicle and transmits the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to the control system of the hybrid vehicle.”
These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the mind, but for the recitation of “an apparatus for power control considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle, comprising: an average requested power calculation unit that; a fuel power output calculation unit that; a battery-based power calculation unit that; a communication unit that; continuously receives the requested power value from the control unit of the hybrid vehicle and transmits the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to the control system of the hybrid vehicle”. That is, other than reciting the underlined and italicized limitations above, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind.
For example, a human can, in their mind, calculate an average requested power for the requested power value continuously received from a control unit of the hybrid vehicle; calculate an optimal fuel power output command value that minimizes an average equivalent fuel consumption for the average requested power value; calculate a battery-based power from the requested power value and the optimal fuel power output.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements underlined and italicized above. The an apparatus for power control, a hybrid vehicle, an average requested power calculation unit, a fuel power output calculation unit, a battery-based power calculation unit, and a communication unit is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely link(s) the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The continuously receives step and transmits step is/are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, manipulation, and transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of an apparatus for power control, a hybrid vehicle, an average requested power calculation unit, a fuel power output calculation unit, a battery-based power calculation unit, and a communication unit is/are no more than mere generic linking of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element of continuously receives step and transmits step is/are mere data gathering, manipulation, and transmission, and is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and thus is/are no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and see OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Thus, the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim contains ineligible subject matter.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 14, 16, 19 recite(s) limitations that are no more that the abstract idea recited in claim(s) 1 and 12. The claim(s) recite(s) defining variables and calculations, determining steps, defining equations, and calculating steps, which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim(s) contain(s) ineligible subject matter.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 9, 15, 17, 18, 20 recite(s) limitations that are no more that the abstract idea recited in claim(s) 1 and 12. The claim(s) recite(s) defining equations and variables, defining power commands, and calculating steps, which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. The claim(s) recite(s) hybrid vehicle, engine-electric hybrid powertrain, and fuel cell-electric hybrid powertrain at a high level of generality to generically link the use of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment. Thus, the claim(s) contain(s) ineligible subject matter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2020/0391721 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1: Wang teaches: A power control method considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle, comprising ([0001] model predictive control strategies for powertrain systems for electric-drive vehicles):
(a) receiving a current requested power value from the hybrid vehicle ([0010] determining, via controller based on estimated velocities, estimated power requests including a vehicle axle torque and/or a transmission input torque);
(b) calculating an average requested power from the received plurality of requested power values ([0010] find velocities for road segments along predicted path, and estimate power requests based on velocities for road segments, including vehicle axle and/or transmission input torques);
(c) calculating an optimal fuel power output command value that minimizes an average equivalent fuel consumption for the average requested power ([0010] calculating, via controller, minimum cost function of motor power such that summation of fuel consumption to generate engine power outputs for road segments is minimized);
(d) calculating a battery-based power command from the optimal fuel power output command calculated in step (c) and the requested power value ([0010] wherein calculating minimum cost function is subject to maximum and minimum battery current limits of traction battery pack and SOC terminal costs at ends of road segments); and
(e) transmitting the optimal fuel power output command and the battery-based power command to a control system of the hybrid vehicle ([0010] transmitting, via controller, engine command signal to engine and motor command signal to motor to output engine torque and motor torque, based on calculated minimum cost function of motor power).
Regarding claim 3: Wang further teaches: The power control method of claim 1, further comprising, between step (c) and step (d), a step of: (c1) determining the fuel power output command as an allowable minimum value of the fuel power output if the fuel power output command value calculated in step (c) is less than or equal to the allowable minimum value of the fuel power output, determining the fuel power output command as an allowable maximum value of the fuel power output if the calculated fuel power output command value is greater than or equal to the allowable maximum value of the fuel power output, and determining the fuel power output command as the calculated fuel power output command value if the calculated fuel power output command value is between the allowable maximum value and the allowable minimum value of the fuel power output ([0013] calculating the minimum cost function is subject to max./min. constraints of battery pack SOC state, engine power limit, motor power limit, SOC charge sustaining; [0050] constraints include: dynamic system model, engine torque min/max, motor power min/max, SOC min/max, battery power, battery SOC charge sustaining, catalyst light-off temp; Co-states for PMP control problem include motor equivalence fuel factor and electric heating equivalence fuel factor; [0051] translates engine and motor torque, subject to SOC and battery power constraints, single motor torque min/max constraint; vehicle controller transmitting command signals to engine and motor to output engine and motor torques based on calculated minimum cost function of motor power; [0032] optimal energy management evaluations include determining the power split between engine power output and motor power output such that total fuel consumption is minimized).
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 corresponds in scope to claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 corresponds in scope to claim 1 and is similarly rejected. Wang further teaches: An apparatus for performing power control considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle, comprising ([0011] HEV, PHEV, fuel cell hybrid, fully and partially autonomous vehicles; [0012] vehicle controller or a network of distributed controllers that regulates operation of traction motor(s), battery pack, engine assembly; programmed to determine path plan data, estimated vehicle velocities for road segments, a respective power request):
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions stored in the at least one memory cause the at least one processor to perform ([0011] HEV, PHEV, fuel cell hybrid, fully and partially autonomous vehicles; [0014] techniques, algorithms, or logic for operating or assembling any of the disclosed systems and devices; non-transitory, computer readable media storing instructions executable by at least one of one or more processors of one or more programmable control units, such as an electronic control unit (ECU) or powertrain control module, to govern operation of a disclosed vehicle, system or device).
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 corresponds in scope to claim 1 and is similarly rejected. Wang further teaches: A computer program for performing power control considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle, stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and comprising instructions that cause a processor to perform ([0011] HEV, PHEV, fuel cell hybrid, fully and partially autonomous vehicles; [0014] techniques, algorithms, or logic for operating or assembling any of the disclosed systems and devices; non-transitory, computer readable media storing instructions executable by at least one of one or more processors of one or more programmable control units, such as an electronic control unit (ECU) or powertrain control module, to govern operation of a disclosed vehicle, system or device).
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 corresponds in scope to claim 1 and is similarly rejected. Wang further teaches: An apparatus for power control considering the transient characteristics of a hybrid vehicle, comprising ([0011] HEV, PHEV, fuel cell hybrid, fully and partially autonomous vehicles; [0012] vehicle controller or a network of distributed controllers that regulates operation of traction motor(s), battery pack, engine assembly; programmed to determine path plan data, estimated vehicle velocities for road segments, a respective power request):
an average requested power calculation unit that […] continuously received […]; a fuel power output calculation unit that […]; a battery-based power calculation unit that […]; and a communication unit that continuously receives […] ([0014] techniques, algorithms, or logic for operating or assembling any of the disclosed systems and devices; non-transitory, computer readable media storing instructions executable by at least one of one or more processors of one or more programmable control units, such as an electronic control unit (ECU) or powertrain control module, to govern operation of a disclosed vehicle, system or device; [0051] runs in continuous loop).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-9, 13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0391721 A1, hereinafter “Wang”) and an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (described below).
Regarding claim 2: Wang further teaches: The power control method of claim 1, wherein the average equivalent fuel consumption is defined as a weighted sum of average fuel consumption and average battery power expressed as
PNG
media_image4.png
52
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where λ is the equivalence factor ([0032] optimal energy management evaluations include determining power split between engine power output and motor power output (requested power is predetermined by velocity profile) such that total fuel consumption is minimized; Equation (1): includes mass flow rate of fuel, battery current limits (charging/discharging), battery charge, limits of motor power, limits of engine power, motor speed, battery SoC set point, power dissipated by brakes; [0035] helps to minimize the sum of fuel consumption over time intervals as well as extra fuel consumption value beyond, an equivalence factor may be used).
However, Wang may be silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for the average equivalent fuel consumption. Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving the average equivalent fuel consumption, as shown by Wang. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 corresponds in scope to claim 2 and is similarly rejected over Wang and the obvious design choice of one of ordinary skill in the art as described above.
Regarding claim 4: Wang further teaches: The power control method of claim 2, wherein, when the hybrid vehicle uses an engine-electric hybrid powertrain ([0004] series hybrid: derive all tractive power from electric motors; parallel hybrid: engine and motor/generator assemblies each has driving power; series-parallel (“power-split”) hybrid configuration: engine and motor work independently or jointly, in parallel or series, depending on desired speed, overall power demand, and SOC of battery),
the instantaneous fuel amount model equation is
PNG
media_image5.png
3
385
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and the battery power model equation is
PNG
media_image5.png
3
385
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where the motor power (Pm) is determined by the difference between the requested power (P) and the fuel power output (Pf), wm is the motor speed, wf is the engine speed, q0, q1, q2 are each a function of wf, and r0, r1, r2 are each a function of wm ([0032] optimal energy management evaluations include determining power split between engine power output and motor power output (requested power is predetermined by velocity profile) such that total fuel consumption is minimized; Equation (1): includes mass flow rate of fuel, battery current limits (charging/discharging), battery charge, limits of motor power, limits of engine power, motor speed, battery SoC set point, power dissipated by brakes; [0035] helps to minimize the sum of fuel consumption over time intervals as well as extra fuel consumption value beyond, an equivalence factor may be used; see Equation (2); [0030] routines executed in real-time, continuously, systematically, and/or at regular intervals during vehicle use or operation).
However, Wang may be silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for the instantaneous fuel amount model and battery power model equations. Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving the instantaneous fuel amount model and battery power model equations, as shown by Wang. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 corresponds in scope to claim 4 and is similarly rejected over Wang and the obvious design choice of one of ordinary skill in the art as described above.
Regarding claim 5: Wang further teaches: The power control method of claim 4, wherein the optimal fuel power output command is determined as
PNG
media_image6.png
85
246
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0049] determine an optimal power split between engine and motor power outputs to minimize fuel consumption; controller determines, based on estimated vehicle velocities, a respective estimated power request for each road segment, where each estimated power request includes an engine power output and a motor power output; [0050] calculates a minimum cost function of motor power such that summation of fuel consumption to generate the engine power outputs for road segments of predicted path is minimized; formulates an optimal control problem; see equations; [0038] driving cycles using Dynamic Programming to optimize cost with SOC tracking; average sensitivity of optimal fuel consumption with respect to SOC calculated; see equations).
However, Wang may be silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for the optimal fuel power output. Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving the optimal fuel power output, as shown by Wang. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 corresponds in scope to claim 5 and is similarly rejected over Wang and the obvious design choice of one of ordinary skill in the art as described above.
Regarding claim 6: Wang further teaches: The power control method of claim 4, wherein, when the hybrid vehicle uses an engine-electric hybrid powertrain ([0004] series hybrid: derive all tractive power from electric motors; parallel hybrid: engine and motor/generator assemblies each has driving power; series-parallel (“power-split”) hybrid configuration: engine and motor work independently or jointly, in parallel or series, depending on desired speed, overall power demand, and SOC of battery),
the battery-based power command calculated in step (d) is a motor power command ([0051] vehicle controller transmitting one or more command signals to engine and motor to output engine torque and motor torque based on calculated minimum cost function of motor power).
Regarding claim 17: Claim 17 corresponds in scope to claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 7: Wang further teaches: The power control method of claim 2, wherein, when the hybrid vehicle uses a fuel cell-electric hybrid powertrain ([0004] series hybrid: derive all tractive power from electric motors; parallel hybrid: engine and motor/generator assemblies each has driving power; series-parallel (“power-split”) hybrid configuration: engine and motor work independently or jointly, in parallel or series, depending on desired speed, overall power demand, and SOC of battery),
the instantaneous fuel amount model equation is
PNG
media_image7.png
1
199
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and the battery power model equation is
PNG
media_image7.png
1
199
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0032] optimal energy management evaluations include determining power split between engine power output and motor power output (requested power is predetermined by velocity profile) such that total fuel consumption is minimized; Equation (1): includes mass flow rate of fuel, battery current limits (charging/discharging), battery charge, limits of motor power, limits of engine power, motor speed, battery SoC set point, power dissipated by brakes; [0035] helps to minimize the sum of fuel consumption over time intervals as well as extra fuel consumption value beyond, an equivalence factor may be used; see Equation (2); [0030] routines executed in real-time, continuously, systematically, and/or at regular intervals during vehicle use or operation).
However, Wang may be silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for the instantaneous fuel amount model and battery power model equations. Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving the instantaneous fuel amount model and battery power model equations, as shown by Wang. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 corresponds in scope to claim 7 and is similarly rejected over Wang and the obvious design choice of one of ordinary skill in the art as described above.
Regarding claim 8: Wang further teaches: The power control method of claim 7, wherein the optimal fuel power output command is determined as
PNG
media_image8.png
88
258
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0049] determine an optimal power split between engine and mo