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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on November 19, 2025. Claims 5 and 6 have been canceled by the applicant. Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 19, 2019 regarding the Title have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner believes the title is still not descriptive. (see below)
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed November 19, 2019, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 regarding "transmission module" and "energy storage module" has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 5, filed November 19, 2019, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding "electric energy distributor", applicant has amended the claim to state “being a controller”. This is not enabled as the specification does not describe this.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed November 19, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art in view of the submitted amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Amended claim 1 states “electric energy distributor being a controller”. The specification does not support this as there is no mention or showing of a controller in the entirety of the application. Therefore, the claim is not enabled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4 and 7-8 are rejected as being on a dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severinsky et al., US 2014/0131124 A in view of Yamamoto et al., US 2020/0231139 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Severinsky teaches a hybrid power system for vehicles, comprising:
a transmission module having a gear set, a differential, a plurality of rotating shafts, and a plurality of tires; (Severinsky, see at least ¶ [0126] “Referring specifically to FIG. 1, which is reproduced here from the '970 patent for convenience, curve 10 represents the output power versus engine speed (RPM) of a typical spark ignition gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine as used with an automatic transmission in a typical sedan of 3,300 pounds.”)
a motor, connected to the transmission module; (Severinsky, see at least ¶ [0142] “Motors 21 and 25 are controllably connected for torque transfer by a clutch 51, mechanically interlocking the shafts 15 and 16 of motors 21 and 25 respectively.”)
an electrical energy distributor being a controller, coupled to the motor; (Severinsky, see at least ¶ [0142] “As discussed further below in connection with FIG. 4, microprocessor (“μP”) 48 is provided with signals indicative of the rotational speeds of shafts 15 and 16, and controls operation of engine 40, motor 21, and motor as necessary to ensure that the shafts are rotating at substantially the same speed before engaging clutch 51.”)
an engine generator, coupled to the electrical energy distributor; (Severinsky, see at least ¶ [0142] “As discussed further below in connection with FIG. 4, microprocessor (“μP”) 48 is provided with signals indicative of the rotational speeds of shafts 15 and 16, and controls operation of engine 40, motor 21, and motor as necessary to ensure that the shafts are rotating at substantially the same speed before engaging clutch 51.”) and
an energy storage module comprising a plurality of aluminum-ion batteries coupled to the electrical energy distributor, (Severinsky, see at least ¶ [00153] “ Control of starting of engine 40, and using either or both of starting motor 21 and traction motor 25 as motors, providing propulsive torque, or as generators, providing recharging current to battery bank 22, is accomplished by microprocessor 48 by way of control signals provided to inverter/ charger units 23 and 27.” And Fig. 3 and It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to construct the energy storage module from aluminum-ion batteries, since applicant has not disclosed that aluminum-ion batteries solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with conventional batteries such as lithium-ion batteries. In addition, Severinsky states ¶ [0141] “At present, essentially conventional lead-acid batteries are preferred for battery bank 22, since these are widely available and well understood. More advanced batteries may be used if and when they become widely available and economically competitive.”)
Severinsky does not specifically teach the following. However, Yamamoto teaches
wherein the engine generator is adapted to rotate at a constant speed (Yamamoto, see at least ¶ [0076] “FIGS. 6A to 6C are charts representing a relationship between the average engine torque estimated by the average engine torque estimation part 36 and the countertorque, under the condition that the engine speed is constant”) to generate a first power, and the electrical energy distributor provides the first power to the motor and the energy storage module, (Yamamoto, see at least ¶ [0073] “Further, the PCM 14 operates to control the input and output of electric power between the motor 4 and the battery 10 through the inverter 12, such that the motor 4 outputs the motor instruction torque determined in the step S5. After the step S6, the PCM 14 completes one cycle of driving force control processing.”)
wherein the engine generator rotates at the constant speed, (Yamamoto, see at least ¶ [0076] “FIGS. 6A to 6C are charts representing a relationship between the average engine torque estimated by the average engine torque estimation part 36 and the countertorque, under the condition that the engine speed is constant”) the motor operates dynamically to consume a part of the first power, and the other part of the first power is transmitted to the energy storage module through the electrical energy distributor to dynamically charge the energy storage module. (Yamamoto, see at least ¶ [0073] “Further, the PCM 14 operates to control the input and output of electric power between the motor 4 and the battery 10 through the inverter 12, such that the motor 4 outputs the motor instruction torque determined in the step S5. After the step S6, the PCM 14 completes one cycle of driving force control processing.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Severinsky with those of Yamamoto as both hybrid vehicle control systems and methods of utilizing an engine for charge. In addition, this would be use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, Severinsky in view of Yamamoto teaches a hybrid power system, wherein when the motor switches to a low-speed mode or a high-speed mode, the energy storage module transmits a second power to the motor through the electrical energy distributor, and the electrical energy distributor turns off the engine generator. (Severinsky, see at least ¶ [0046] “At low speeds one or both motors may be used to propel the vehicle, with the engine off, idling, or running to drive one motor as a generator”)
Regarding claim 3, Severinsky in view of Yamamoto teaches a hybrid power system, wherein when electric quantity of the energy storage module is higher than a predetermined value, the electrical energy distributor turns off the engine generator and the energy storage module supplies a second power to the motor. (Severinsky, see at least ¶ [0212] “During mode IV operation, if the batteries become substantially fully charged, e.g., during a long descent, as at N, the engine may be shut off entirely, as seen at Q in FIG. 7( c).”)
Regarding claim 4, Severinsky in view of Yamamoto teaches a hybrid power system, wherein when electric quantity of the energy storage module is lower than a predetermined value, the electrical energy distributor turns on the engine generator to provide the first power to the motor and the energy storage module. (Severinsky, see at least ¶ [0212] “hen MTO exceeds the road load, and BSC falls below a predetermined level (see FIG. 7( b)), as at I and J, the excess torque available from engine 40 is used to charge the batteries, as indicated at K and L (FIG. 7( c)).”)
Regarding claim 7, Severinsky in view of Yamamoto teaches a hybrid power system, wherein the energy storage module and the engine generator are connected in parallel to the electrical energy distributor. (Severinsky, see at least Fig. 3 where the engine is connected to the microprocessor 48 and then the battery bank 22)
Regarding claim 8, Severinsky in view of Yamamoto teaches a hybrid power system for vehicles, wherein the gear set is coupled to the motor, the differential is meshed with the gear set, the rotating shafts are disposed on opposite sides of the differential and extend in an axial direction, and the tires are respectively mounted on the rotating shafts. (Severinsky, see at least Fig. 3)
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.
Inquire
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668