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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6 May 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakiyo, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0086741) in view of Morisawa, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,205,379).
For claim 1, Sadakiyo teaches a control device to be provided in a vehicle that has a first driving source configured to drive a front wheel, a second driving source configured to drive a rear wheel, and a thermometer measuring a temperature of the second driving source, the control device controlling each driving of the first driving source and the second driving source (see para. 0022, Fig. 1, #123), wherein the control device is configured to: determine driving circumstances of the vehicle (see para. 0064, excessive slip); decide an output allocation ratio between the first driving source and the second driving source which output a driving power for the vehicle, based on a result of the determination (see paras. 0071-0072); and control to drive the vehicle with the driving power at the decided output allocation ratio (see paras. 0071-0072), when the control device determines the driving circumstances, the control device is configured to: in a case where the temperature measured by the thermometer is lower than a threshold (see para. 0068). Sadakiyo does not explicitly disclose the remainder of the limitation.
A teaching from Morisawa discloses determine whether a road on which the vehicle travels is in a slippery state or not, and an ascent gradient of the road (see Fig. 13, M8-1).
Sadakiyo further teaches in a case where the temperature is equal to or higher than the threshold (see paras. 0069-0070). Morisawa further teaches determine the ascent gradient of the road when the road is in the slippery state (see Fig. 13, M8-1, M8-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Sadakiyo with the teachings of Morisawa based on the expectation of success and the motivation to improve a vehicle that is started on an ascending road surface having a relatively high gradient, by concurrent operations of the engine and the electric motor and avoiding the delayed increase of the engine-assisting motor torque that lead to initial slipping of the wheels driven by the engine on the ascending road surface.
Regarding claim 2, Sadakiyo further teaches wherein in the case where the temperature is lower than the threshold (see paras. 0068). Morisawa further teaches wherein the control device is configured to: when the control device determines that the road is in the slippery state and the ascent gradient is equal to or higher than a first threshold (see Fig. 13, M8-4), set the output allocation ratio to a first output allocation ratio in which a proportion of the second driving source is equal to or larger than a proportion of the first driving source (see Fig. 13, M8-7); and when the control device determines that the road is in the slippery state and the ascent gradient is lower than the first threshold (see Fig. 13, M8-4), set the output allocation ratio to a second output allocation ratio in which a proportion of the first driving source is larger and a proportion of the second driving source is smaller than those of the first output allocation ratio (see Fig. 13, M8-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663