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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 are pending in this application.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Claims 1-3 are amended.
Claims 1-3 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 21 April 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. (US Publication 2014/0148986 A1) in view of Furukawa et al. (US Publication 2014/0129067 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshikawa teaches a hybrid electric vehicle control device for a hybrid electric vehicle that includes an engine and an electric motor as power sources for travel (Yoshikawa: Para. 5; hybrid vehicle that runs using an engine and an electric motor as driving sources), a pair of drive wheels, a power transfer path between the electric motor and the pair of drive wheels (Yoshikawa: Para. 12; power transmission path between an engine and an electric motor, and drive wheels), and a torque converter with a lockup clutch provided in the power transfer path (Yoshikawa: Para. 24; torque converter is a fluid transmission device that includes a pump impeller as an input-side rotary element capable of rotating about its axis, a turbine wheel as an output-side rotary element, and a lock-up clutch, and is operable to transmit driving force), the hybrid electric vehicle control device comprising a processor configured to: switch between autonomous travel and manual travel (Yoshikawa: Para. 45; the vehicle is switched to the manual shift mode); ……….. , the battery electric vehicle traveling mode being a first mode in which only the electric motor is used as a power source (Yoshikawa: Para. 25; motor MG is a so-called motor-generator that functions as a generator that generates mechanical driving force from electric energy; the motor MG can function as a driving power source that generates driving force for running the vehicle, in place of the engine as a driving power source), and the engine traveling mode being a second mode in which at least the engine is used as the power source (Yoshikawa: Para. 23-24; the power of the engine is transmitted from an engine coupling shaft that couples the engine with the clutch to a pair of drive wheels).
Yoshikawa doesn’t explicitly teach determine whether the vehicle is traveling in a battery electric vehicle traveling mode or an engine traveling mode …….. determine whether the vehicle is traveling in the autonomous travel or in the manual travel; disengage the lockup clutch in a case where the processor determines that the vehicle is traveling in the engine traveling mode and in a case where the processor determines that the vehicle is in the manual travel; and engage the lockup clutch in a case where the processor determines that the vehicle is traveling in the battery electric vehicle traveling mode during the autonomous travel.
However Furukawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine whether the vehicle is traveling in a battery electric vehicle traveling mode or an engine traveling mode (Furukawa: Para. 7; running position selection device capable of selecting an automatic running position and a manual running position) …….. determine whether the vehicle is traveling in the autonomous travel or in the manual travel (Furukawa: Para. 7; running position selection device capable of selecting an automatic running position and a manual running position); disengage the lockup clutch in a case where the processor determines that the vehicle is traveling in the engine traveling mode and in a case where the processor determines that the vehicle is in the manual travel (Furukawa: Para. 7; while the vehicle is running with the engine interrupted from the wheels, if the first manual mode is selected, the vehicle deceleration is generated only by the rotating machine); and engage the lockup clutch in a case where the processor determines that the vehicle is traveling in the battery electric vehicle traveling mode during the autonomous travel (Furukawa: Para. 13; automatic transmission; during the motor running in which only the rotating machine is used as a drive power source for running; connection/disconnection device is put into the connected state to allow at least the engine to generate the vehicle deceleration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the hybrid vehicle lockup clutch (Yoshikawa: Para. 5, 24) with the situational disconnection from a power source power (Furukawa: Para. 7, 13) with a reasonable expectation of success because a manually driven engine is susceptible to an increasingly hotter engine, therefore power the hybrid by battery while manually driven will reduce the temperature in the engine compartment increasing durability (Furukawa: Para. 2, 5, 7).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. (US Publication 2014/0148986 A1) in view of Furukawa et al. (US Publication 2014/0129067 A1) and in further view of Stoffels et al. (US Publication 2019/0077245 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshikawa and Furukawa don’t explicitly teach wherein switching from the battery electric vehicle travel mode to the engine travel mode during the autonomous travel is made based on a prediction that a power load during the autonomous travel will become greater than a predetermined load determination amount.
However Stoffels, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein switching from the battery electric vehicle travel mode to the engine travel mode during the autonomous travel is made based on a prediction that a power load during the autonomous travel will become greater than a predetermined load determination amount (Stoffels: Para. 30, 56, 59, Fig. 4; checked whether the electric machine, as such, would essentially be capable of providing the requested drive power; If this is the case, a changeover to the two-pedal mode; a two-pedal mode, in which the electric machine is used as a drive).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the hybrid vehicle lockup clutch (Yoshikawa: Para. 5, 24) with the situational disconnection from a power source power (Furukawa: Para. 7, 13) and the internal combustion engine use during manual driving (Stoffels: Para. 30, 56, Fig. 4) with a reasonable expectation of success because if the electric machine is used as a drive unit in the two-pedal mode, the driver, owing to the lack of combustion noise from the internal combustion engine, is uncertain and uninformed as to whether and when it is necessary or advisable to shift transmission gears (Stoffels: Para. 5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. (US Publication 2014/0148986 A1) in view of Furukawa et al. (US Publication 2014/0129067 A1), Stoffels et al. (US Publication 2019/0077245 A1), and in further view of Endo et al. (US Publication 2018/0120841 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshikawa, Furukawa, and Stoffels don’t explicitly teach wherein switching from the battery electric vehicle travel mode to the engine travel mode during the autonomous travel is made based on a prediction that a state-of-charge value of a battery that transmits and receives electric power to and from the electric motor will become less than an engine start threshold.
However Endo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein switching from the battery electric vehicle travel mode to the engine travel mode during the autonomous travel is made based on a prediction that a state-of-charge value of a battery that transmits and receives electric power to and from the electric motor will become less than an engine start threshold (Endo: Para. 12; the second clutch is engaged, in a case that the predetermined condition is satisfied during autonomous operation of the vehicle, that the state of charge level of the battery is higher than the first threshold level but lower than a second threshold level, and that the downhill grade of the road is milder than the first threshold grade).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the hybrid vehicle lockup clutch (Yoshikawa: Para. 5, 24) with the situational disconnection from a power source power (Furukawa: Para. 7, 13), the internal combustion engine use during manual driving (Stoffels: Para. 30, 56, Fig. 4), and the clutch engagement based on autonomous driving and state of charge (Endo: Para. 12) with a reasonable expectation of success because use of the battery in autonomous vehicle operation improves mileage and reduces fuel consumption (Endo: Para. 94).
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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 on (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 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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights