DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,031) in view of Tateishi (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0090931).
Regarding claim 1, 7, 9 and 10, Ogata discloses a method, performed by a control arrangement, for shutting down a combustion engine of a powertrain of a vehicle, wherein said vehicle comprises:
at least one auxiliary brake comprising an exhaust brake (col. 18, lines 10-15); and
an electrical machine (6), wherein the method comprises,
in response to a command for shutdown (construed as stopping fuel injection) of the combustion engine:
stopping fuel injection (col. 18, lines 11-12) to the combustion engine;
activating said at least one auxiliary brake so as to brake the combustion engine, if not already activated, wherein activating the at least one auxiliary brake is performed prior to, or simultaneously with, stopping fuel injection to the combustion engine; and controlling the electrical machine to apply a torque to the combustion engine according to a torque profile so as to dampen oscillations in a crankshaft of the combustion engine (col. 18, lines 10-15 the torque applied by the motor will dampen oscillations that would otherwise be present without the application of the motor force).
Ogata does not disclose an intake air throttle (col. 13, lines 37-40 discloses the intake and col. 18, lines 32-33 discloses a throttle) arranged in an intake pipe of the combustion engine; controlling the intake air throttle to a partially closed position (the throttle is not fully closed until s24) so as to reduce the air intake to the combustion engine.
Tateishi, which deals in stopping engines, teaches an intake air throttle (¶3) arranged in an intake pipe of the combustion engine; controlling the intake air throttle to a partially closed position (the throttle is controlled to reducing levels as the engine speed is reduced) so as to reduce the air intake to the combustion engine.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ogata with the throttle of Tateishi because this gives control of intake air to the engine to reduce vibration (¶3).
Regarding claim 6, 15 and 20 which depends from claim 1, 9 and 10 respectively, Ogata discloses further comprising controlling the electrical machine to apply a braking torque to the combustion engine according to a torque profile so as to dampen oscillations in a crankshaft of the combustion engine while reducing the rotational speed of the crankshaft (this method is applying a torque to slow then engine which will result in a damping of oscillations).
Claim(s) 3, 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,031) in view of Tateishi (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0090931) as applied to claims 1,9 and 10 above, further in view of Okumoto (U.S. Pat. No. 8,036,815).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 17 which depends from claim 1, 9 and 10 respectively, Tateishi does not disclose this limitation outside of a full stop and restart of the engine. Okumoto, which deals in engine stops, teaches further comprising, in response to a determination that the rotational speed of the combustion engine is reduced below a threshold speed, controlling the intake air throttle so as to increase the air intake to the combustion engine (fig. 6 depicts different engine threshold hold speeds where the engine can be restarted with different methods).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ogata with the engine threshold restart of Okumoto because this allows better responsiveness to a restart request by immediately restarting (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 01/27/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 3 that the Fukitani reference does not call the exhaust valves an exhaust brake. The operation of the exhaust valves provide some amount of braking effect to the engine and so qualify even if Fukitani does not call them an exhaust brake.
Applicant argues on page 3 that the Fukitani reference does not activate a mechanical brake first before then applying a motor force. The claims state that a brake is applied while the motor is also being controlled. This allows for a simultaneous operation of both. The Fukitani reference analyzes the braking request and provides the appropriate braking torque which can include the mechanical brake and motor brake being applied simultaneously.
Applicant argues on page 4 that Fukitani does not apply any torque to the crankshaft. The engine and motor and wheels are all connected. Any torque applied to one will transfer to the other pieces of equipment. As a result a regenerative braking force on the wheels by the motor will also have an effect on the engine which is connected to the wheels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747