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 Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 20180170350 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 20130030633 A1) and Izumi (US 20090315519 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Aoki discloses a hybrid vehicle comprising (Abstract, Paragraphs 0026);
an engine and a motor that operate independently of each other (Paragraphs 0027, 0029, Fig. 1; Motor is mapped to motor generators (MG1 and MG2));
a battery that stores electric power (Paragraphs 0026, 0030);
and the motor (Paragraphs 0029, 0034);
a control device that controls operating states of the engine and the motor (Paragraphs 0026, 0034; Control device is mapped to HVECU);
the hybrid vehicle has an EV priority mode and a normal mode, each of the EV priority mode and the normal mode having a requirement for starting the engine when the motor is operating but the engine is not operating (Paragraphs 0005, 0036-0037);
the requirement in the EV priority mode is set more strictly in contrast to the normal mode, and the requirement in the normal mode is set more loosely in contrast to the EV priority mode (Paragraphs 0005, 0036-0037).
Aoki does not specifically state to operate the engine with a battery; the first upper limit value is an upper limit value of the battery output in the EV priority mode; the second upper limit value is an upper limit value of the battery output in the normal mode.
However, Yamamoto teaches to operate the engine with a battery (Paragraph 0039);
the first upper limit value is an upper limit value of the battery output in the EV priority mode (Paragraph 0060, Fig. 5; First upper limit is mapped to W1);
the second upper limit value is an upper limit value of the battery output in the normal mode (Paragraph 0060, Fig. 5; Second upper limit is mapped to W0).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Aoki with operating the engine with a battery, and a first and second upper limit value of Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a hybrid vehicle can use the battery power to start the internal combustion engine. Different upper limits can be set based on the travel modes so that the internal combustion engine starts more or less frequently. In EV priority mode, the first upper limit for discharge allowable power is set higher so that the engine doesn’t start as frequently compared to normal hybrid mode. The driver is able to step on the accelerator harder and still maintain EV driving. One would have been motivated to combine Aoki with Yamamoto as this achieves improved driving feel. As stated in Yamamoto, “the driver cannot enjoy the sense of EV running sufficiently if engine ENG is frequently started in response to stepping on the accelerator pedal. The first embodiment is directed to improving the sense of EV running by increasing discharge allowable power Wout to suppress the frequency of starting engine ENG when the running mode is at the CD mode and engine ENG is stopped” (Paragraphs 0064-0065).
Aoki does not specifically state if a voltage of the battery declines to a threshold higher than a lower limit voltage, the control device performs output suppression control that gradually reduces a battery output of the battery; the control device separates the battery output from a first upper limit value and brings the battery output close to a second upper limit value in the output suppression control in the EV priority mode.
However, Izumi teaches if a voltage of the battery declines to a threshold higher than a lower limit voltage, the control device performs output suppression control that gradually reduces a battery output of the battery (Paragraphs 0165-0177, Fig. 15);
the control device separates the battery output from a first upper limit value and brings the battery output close to a second upper limit value in the output suppression control in the EV priority mode (Paragraphs 0115-0116, 0119-0121, 0165-0177, Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Aoki with output suppression control of the battery of Izumi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that suppressing battery output when the battery voltage reaches a threshold reduces the chances of overdischarge, which causes the battery to deteriorate quicker. The first and second upper limits of battery output can be set based on the discharge allowable power of the different travel modes to facilitate transitioning between the modes. One would have been motivated to combine Aoki with Izumi as this reduces battery deterioration. As stated in Izumi, “An object of the invention is to provide a control device of a secondary battery that can suppress deterioration due to overcharge or overdischarge” (Paragraph 0005).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki, Yamamoto, and Izumi, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Komuro (US 20190193720 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Aoki discloses the control device.
Aoki does not specifically state the control device terminates the output suppression control by starting the engine when the battery output declines to the second upper limit value in the output suppression control in the EV priority mode.
However, Komuro teaches the control device terminates the output suppression control by starting the engine when the battery output declines to the second upper limit value in the output suppression control in the EV priority mode (Paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Aoki with terminating the output suppression control by starting the engine of Komuro with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that suppression, or stopping, of battery output can be terminated when the engine is started because the engine starts supplying power to the wheels. The motor generators can regenerate power and start supplying power to the wheels again. One would have been motivated to combine Aoki with Komuro as this achieves battery charge regulation. As stated in Komuro, “in a case where a level of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery 66 is lower than a predetermined threshold, or in a case where a temperature of the battery 66 is higher than a predetermined threshold, the engine traveling mode may be also selected” (Paragraph 0030).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki, Yamamoto, and Izumi, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tatsuhiko (JP 2017158365 A).
Regarding claim 8, Aoki discloses the battery.
Aoki does not specifically state the threshold is set to a higher value as a charge rate of the battery or a battery temperature of the battery is lower.
However, Tatsuhiko teaches the threshold is set to a higher value as a charge rate of the battery or a battery temperature of the battery is lower (Page 9 Paragraph 4 – Page 11 Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Aoki with setting a higher threshold based on lower battery temperature of Tatsuhiko with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that at lower battery temperatures, the voltage drops under load quicker. It is necessary to suppress battery discharge earlier to keep the battery voltage in a safe operable range. One would have been motivated to combine Aoki with Tatsuhiko as this helps maintain the battery in a safe usable range. As stated in Tatsuhiko, “the charging and discharging suppression processing is started earlier, so that the deviation from the cell voltage usage range can be more reliably prevented” (Page 11 Paragraph 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki, Yamamoto, Izumi, and Komuro, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tatsuhiko (JP 2017158365 A).
Regarding claim 9, all limitations have been examined with respect to the hybrid vehicle in claim 8. The hybrid vehicle taught/disclosed in claim 9 can be clearly performed with the hybrid vehicle of claim 8. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki, Yamamoto, and Izumi, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ito (CN 111823889 A).
Regarding claim 10, Aoki discloses the battery.
Aoki does not specifically state the threshold is set to a higher value as an internal resistance of the battery or a driver demand torque is higher.
However, Ito teaches the threshold is set to a higher value as an internal resistance of the battery or a driver demand torque is higher (Page 15 Paragraph 3 – Page 16 Paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Aoki with setting a higher threshold when the internal resistance of the battery is higher of Ito with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a higher internal resistance of the battery reduces the effective capacity of the battery. Setting a higher threshold allows the battery to be discharged less quickly elongating the cycle life, and prevents overdischarge. One would have been motivated to combine Aoki with Ito as this prevents overdischarge of the battery. As stated in Ito, “when the internal resistance of the storage battery is increased, the upper limit of the discharge is set to be small and the period of the temporary stop of the engine is shortened. Therefore, it can ensure the chance of temporary stop of the engine, and inhibit the condition that the storage battery is over-discharged due to the temporary stop of the engine” (Page 3 Paragraph 2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki, Yamamoto, Izumi, and Komuro, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ito (CN 111823889 A).
Regarding claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the hybrid vehicle in claim 10. The hybrid vehicle taught/disclosed in claim 11 can be clearly performed with the hybrid vehicle of claim 10. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/TODD MELTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669