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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 11-14 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025, with respect to claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 11 objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the newly amended limitations “proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges ...” and “proportions of driving at different gradient ranges ...” in view of Specification paragraphs 29-31 overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The common definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary of “proportion” is “the relation of one part to another or to the whole with respect to magnitude, quantity, or degree”; however, Specification paragraphs 29-31 merely describes of obtaining instantaneous vehicle information and comparing this instantaneous vehicle information with a predefined threshold. With the interpretation set by the Specification, the claims most closely read as obtaining information of the vehicle over a period of time and determining a portion (e.g., part or piece) of the vehicle speed and gradient at a current instance rather than a proportion (e.g., ratio or relative amount) of the vehicle speed and gradient.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to claims 1-14 rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kuroda et al. (6314347; hereinafter Kuroda; already of record) fails to teach of “proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges within a preset time” and “proportions of driving at different gradient ranges of a road”; however, based on the interpretations of the proportional limitations and arguments above, Kuroda discloses:
“The vehicle velocity sensor 24 senses the driving speed of the vehicle” Col. 4 Lines 34-35, “shown in FIG. 3A, when the vehicle drives at 50 km/h (vehicle speed V) for two minutes (time t) and, after that, the vehicle drives at 20 km/h for five minutes ...” Col. 5 Lines 14-17
“information of the route to the destination such as the kinds of the roads, intersections, signals, and curvature and inclination of each road” Col. 6 Lines 59-61.
Wherein it can be seen that Kuroda does disclose of “proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges within a preset time” and “proportions of driving at different gradient ranges of a road”. Additionally it can be seen in column 7 lines 37-47 and column 9 lines 47-61 that Kuroda does teach of determining the current operating condition of the vehicle as newly amended in claims 1 and 2.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an obtaining module, configured to obtain ...” in claim 9,
“an operating condition recognition module, configured to determine ...” in claim 9,
“an electricity generation power obtaining module, configured to obtain ...” in claim 9,
“a control module, configured to control ...” in claim 9,
Paragraph 69 describes the steps outlined in the specification may be implemented in any apparatus or device including a processor or other system that can execute instructions. Therefore, the modules outlined above will be interpreted as such, a generic processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 11, the terms “proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges ...” and “proportions of driving at different gradient ranges ...” in claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 11 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges ...” and “proportions of driving at different gradient ranges ...” are not defined by the claim.
The specification paragraph 29 describes “when it is determined that the hybrid electric vehicle is currently driving on the urban road, the driving speed of the hybrid electric vehicle is obtained in real time. The first vehicle speed range and the first proportion threshold are preset in a system of the hybrid electric vehicle for an urban-road road condition, and within the preset time, a proportion of time in which the driving speed of the hybrid electric vehicle falls within the first vehicle speed range to the preset time is obtained”, which shows obtaining a vehicle’s instantaneous speed comparing it to the “proportion threshold(s)”. Similar descriptions are given for the instantaneous vehicle gradient being compared to preset thresholds in paragraphs 29-31. However, the specification does not link the “proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges ...” and “proportions of driving at different gradient ranges ...” to any ratios or relations, as one of ordinary skill in the art would define “proportions”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms “proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges ...” and “proportions of driving at different gradient ranges ...” are indefinite as they refer to comparative relations without giving a baseline as to what they are in relation to. For the purposes of compact prosecution, and based on the context outlined within the claimed limitations, the terms “proportions of different vehicle speed ranges ...” and “proportions of different gradient ranges ...” will be interpreted as instantaneous vehicle speed information and instantaneous gradient information, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuroda et al. (6314347; hereinafter Kuroda; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kuroda teaches an electricity generation method for a hybrid electric vehicle, the method comprising (Kuroda: Abstract):
obtaining position information of the hybrid electric vehicle (Kuroda: “the position of the vehicle and the road condition on the route to the destination are read from the navigation system 34” Col. 10 48-50), proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges within preset time (Kuroda: “The vehicle velocity sensor 24 senses the driving speed of the vehicle” Col. 4 Lines 34-35, “shown in FIG. 3A, when the vehicle drives at 50 km/h (vehicle speed V) for two minutes (time t) and, after that, the vehicle drives at 20 km/h for five minutes ...” Col. 5 Lines 14-17, see also Col. 7 Lines 13-26, Col. 11 25-27), and proportions of driving in different gradient ranges of a road on which the hybrid electric vehicle is located within the preset time (Kuroda: “information of the route to the destination such as the kinds of the roads, intersections, signals, and curvature and inclination of each road” Col. 6 Lines 59-61);
determining a current operating condition of the hybrid electric vehicle according to the position information, the proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges, and the proportions of driving at different gradient ranges (Kuroda: “In step S5, an output (power) P(w) necessary for the driving is calculated by the following equation on the basis of the driving speed pattern of each section ... vsp vehicle velocity (m/sec), acc vehicle acceleration(m/sec2), g gravitational acceleration (m/sec2), and Θ inclination (rad) of road ... FIG. 9C shows the calculation result of the output P based on the road condition of FIG. 9A and the driving speed pattern of FIG. 9B” Col. 7 Lines 48-65);
obtaining corresponding target electricity generation power according to the operating condition (Kuroda: “a driving schedule setting unit 16C of the controller 16 executes a subroutine shown in FIG. 10 and determines a charging/discharging schedule, that is, the operating schedule of the motor and the engine in the route to the destination” Col. 7 Line 66- Col. 8 Line 3); and
controlling the hybrid electric vehicle to generate electricity according to the target electricity generation power (Kuroda: “an output pattern (refer to FIG. 9C) of the route to the destination is retrieved to check whether or not there is a section in which regenerative braking is continued for predetermined time” Col. 8 Lines 4-7, “the regenerative electric energy in the continuous regeneration section CRS can be maximally received” Col. 8 Lines 58-60),
wherein the determining the current operating condition of the hybrid electric vehicle further includes, from a plurality of pre-defined operating conditions, matching one of the plurality of pre-defined operating conditions as the current operating condition based on the position information, the proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges, and the proportions of driving at different gradient ranges (Kuroda: “on the basis of the road conditions to the destination read in step S2 ... the operating pattern on the route to the destination, that is, the driving speed pattern is estimated ... By referring to the driving history table, vehicle driving velocity Vm, acceleration Am on start, and deceleration Dm on stop are read in accordance with the kind of a road every section” col. 7 Lines 10-22, “The navigation system 34 teaches that a jam occurs in the city and the general road after the highway has a downhill road and an uphill road. In the route under the road conditions, as described above, the route is divided at points where stop and start of the vehicle are predicted and a driving speed V pattern shown in FIG. 9B is predicated for each section on the basis of the road condition and the driving history data” Col. 7 lines 40-47), and
wherein each pre-defined operating condition has an electricity generation strategy corresponding to a correction coefficient for the target electricity generation power (Kuroda: “The first term indicates rolling resistance, the second term indicates air resistance, the third term shows acceleration resistance, and the fourth term shows inclination resistance. FIG. 9C shows the calculation result of the output P based on the road condition of FIG. 9A and the driving speed pattern of FIG. 9B. In FIG. 9C, a positive value of the output P necessary for driving the vehicle represents a driving power and a negative value shows a braking power. In step S6, a driving schedule setting unit 16C of the controller 16 executes a subroutine shown in FIG. 10 and determines a charging/discharging schedule, that is, the operating schedule of the motor and the engine in the route to the destination.” Col. 7 line 58 – Col. 8 line 3).
Regarding claim 2, Kuroda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of pre-defined operating conditions includes an urban operating condition (Kuroda: “a vehicle ... enters a city” Col.7 lines 37-38), a provincial road/suburban operating condition (Kuroda: “a vehicle is driven on a general road” Col. 7 lines 37-38), a high-speed operating condition (Kuroda: “a vehicle ... drives on a highway” Col. 7 lines 37-39), and a mountain road operating condition (Kuroda: “a vehicle ... has a downhill road and an uphill road” Col. 7 lines 37-42); and the determining a current operating condition of the hybrid electric vehicle according to the position information, the proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges, and the proportions of driving at different gradient ranges comprises (Kuroda: “In step S5, an output (power) P(w) necessary for the driving is calculated by the following equation on the basis of the driving speed pattern of each section ... vsp vehicle velocity (m/sec), acc vehicle acceleration(m/sec2), g gravitational acceleration (m/sec2), and Θ inclination (rad) of road ... FIG. 9C shows the calculation result of the output P based on the road condition of FIG. 9A and the driving speed pattern of FIG. 9B ... a driving schedule setting unit 16C of the controller 16 executes a subroutine shown in FIG. 10 and determines a charging/discharging schedule, that is, the operating schedule of the motor and the engine in the route to the destination” Col. 7 Lines 48 Col. 8 Line 3):
determining that the current operating condition is the urban operating condition when the position information is an urban road (Kuroda: “a vehicle is driven on a general road from a start point Xs, enters a city” Col. 7 Line 37-38), a proportion of driving in a first vehicle speed range is greater than a first proportion threshold, and a proportion of driving at a first gradient range is less than a fourth proportion threshold (Kuroda: Fig. 7 Elements Vm and City, Fig. 9B Element City, “information of the route to the destination such as the kinds of the roads, intersections, signals, and curvature and inclination of each road, traffic jam information provided by a VICS” Col. 6 Lines 59-62, see also Col. 9 Lines 47-61);
determining that the current operating condition is the provincial road/suburban operating condition when the position information is a provincial road/suburban road (Kuroda: “a vehicle is driven on a general road from a start point Xs” Col. 7 Lines 37-38), a proportion of driving in a second vehicle speed range is greater than a second proportion threshold (Kuroda: Fig. 7 Elements Vm and General, Fig. 9B General sections, “the route is divided at points where stop and start of the vehicle are predicted and a driving speed V pattern shown in FIG. 9B is predicated for each section on the basis of the road condition and the driving history data” Col. 7 Lines 43-47), and the proportion of the first gradient range is less than the fourth proportion threshold (Kuroda: “information of the route to the destination such as the kinds of the roads, intersections, signals, and curvature and inclination of each road, traffic jam information provided by a VICS” Col. 6 Lines 59-62), wherein a vehicle speed in the second vehicle speed range is greater than a vehicle speed in the first vehicle speed range (Kuroda: Fig. 7 Elements Vm, General, and City, Fig. 9B Elements General and City, “the route is divided at points where stop and start of the vehicle are predicted and a driving speed V pattern shown in FIG. 9B is predicated for each section on the basis of the road condition and the driving history data” Col. 7 Lines 43-47);
determining that the current operating condition is the high-speed operating condition when the position information is a high-speed road (Kuroda: “a vehicle is driven on a general road from a start point Xs, enters a city, drives on a highway” Col. 7 Line 37-39), a proportion of driving in a third vehicle speed range is greater than a third proportion threshold (Kuroda: Fig. 7 Elements Vm and Highway, Fig. 9B Element Highway, “the route is divided at points where stop and start of the vehicle are predicted and a driving speed V pattern shown in FIG. 9B is predicated for each section on the basis of the road condition and the driving history data” Col. 7 Lines 43-47), and the proportion of the first gradient range is less than the fourth proportion threshold (Kuroda: “The first term indicates rolling resistance, the second term indicates air resistance, the third term shows acceleration resistance, and the fourth term shows inclination resistance. FIG. 9C shows the calculation result of the output P based on the road condition of FIG. 9A and the driving speed pattern of FIG. 9B” Col. 7 Lines 58-63), wherein a vehicle speed in the third vehicle speed range is greater than the vehicle speed in the second vehicle speed range (Fig. 7 Elements Vm, Highway, and General, Fig. 9B Elements Highway and General, “the route is divided at points where stop and start of the vehicle are predicted and a driving speed V pattern shown in FIG. 9B is predicated for each section on the basis of the road condition and the driving history data” Col. 7 Lines 43-47); and
determining that the current operating condition is the mountain road operating condition when the proportion of driving at the first gradient range is greater than or equal to the fourth proportion threshold (Kuroda: “a vehicle is driven on ... a downhill road and an uphill road” Col. 7 Lines 37-42), wherein the proportion of the first gradient range is a proportion of a gradient greater than a first gradient (Kuroda: “information of the route to the destination such as the kinds of the roads, intersections, signals, and curvature and inclination of each road, traffic jam information provided by a VICS” Col. 6 59-62, see also Col. 7 Lines 48-65).
Regarding claim 3, Kuroda teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the obtaining corresponding target electricity generation power according to the current operating condition comprises:
obtaining initial electricity generation power of the hybrid electric vehicle (Kuroda: “FIG. 5 shows the output torque characteristics and efficiency characteristics of the engine 2 ... the lower the engine speed becomes, the more the efficiency deteriorates. A charging/discharging schedule is consequently made out in such a manner that the vehicle is driven by the motor 4 ... where the efficiency is low in the driving pattern ...” Col. 5 Lines 33-42);
obtaining a corresponding correction coefficient according to the operating condition (Kuroda: “the power generation amount is adjusted so that the SOC at the start point of the continuous regeneration section CRS (start point in the schedule section SS2) does not become equal to or larger that a value at which the regenerated electric energy C of the continuous regeneration section CRS can be completely received” Col. 10 Lines 18-23); and
obtaining the target electricity generation power by correcting the initial electricity generation power according to the correction coefficient (Kuroda: “the battery SOC at the start point (departure position) of the scheduling section SS1 is SOC1, the SOC conversion value of the power generation amount is SOC2, and the SOC conversion value of the battery consumption in the motor driving section SJ is SOC3, the power generation amount is adjusted” Col. 10 Lines 25-30, “in the final scheduling section SS2, the regenerated electric energy C is completely collected and the main battery 15 is charged with the regenerated electric energy C in the continuous regeneration section CRS” Col. 10 Lines 40-43).
Regarding claim 4, Kuroda teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the obtaining a corresponding correction coefficient according to the operating condition comprises:
when the current operating condition is the urban operating condition, the correction coefficient being a first coefficient (Kuroda: Fig. 9E Element SJ, see also Col. 10 Lines 11-31);
when the current operating condition is the provincial road/suburban operating condition, the correction coefficient being a second coefficient (Kuroda: Fig. 9E Element SG, see also Col. 10 Lines 11-31);
when the current operating condition is the mountain road operating condition, the correction coefficient being a third coefficient (Kuroda: Fig. 9E Elements SS2, Regen, and Consumption, see also Col. 10 Lines 11-31); and
when the current operating condition is the high-speed operating condition, the correction coefficient being a fourth coefficient (Kuroda: Fig. 9E Element Highway, 2, see also Col. 10 Lines 11-31),
wherein when a current SOC of a power battery in the hybrid electric vehicle is greater than an SOC balancing point, the first coefficient, the second coefficient, the third coefficient, and the fourth coefficient are 1 (Kuroda: “when an electric energy conversion value P (SOCmax-SOC) of the difference (SOCmax-SOC) between the SOC (prediction value) at the start point of the scheduling section and the upper limit value SOCmax is smaller than a regenerated electric energy C in the scheduling section, it is determined that the SOC of the main battery 15 is too large to receive the regenerated electric energy C” Col. 9 Lines 1-8, “according to the first method of scheduling the storage and consumption of the energy, the main battery 15 is consumed to reduce the SOC in the scheduling section just before the continuous regeneration section CRS so that the main battery 15 can maximally receive the regenerated electric energy C” Col. 9 Lines 21-26, Note: Wherein the claimed limitations set the coefficients to 1, it is setting a limiting value to the power generation, which can be seen in the prior art as disclosing an adjustment to limit the regeneration up to the maximum SOC), and when the SOC is less than or equal to the SOC balancing point, the first coefficient, the second coefficient, the third coefficient, and the fourth coefficient are greater than 1, and the fourth coefficient is greater than the third coefficient, the third coefficient is greater than the second coefficient, and the second coefficient is greater than the first coefficient (Kuroda: Fig. 9D and 9E “When the operating efficiency by the engine 2 is low and the section in which driving or assisting driving performed by the motor 4 is determined is long, there is a case such that the SOC of the main battery 15 is reduced more than necessary and becomes equal to or lower than the lower limit value SOCmin” Col. Lines 62-67, Note: Wherein the claimed invention sets the coefficients to greater than 1, it is adjusting to increase the regeneration when the SOC is lower than the balancing point, which can be seen by the prior art increasing regeneration necessary).
Regarding claim 5, Kuroda teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the obtaining initial electricity generation power of the hybrid electric vehicle comprises:
obtaining driving required power of the hybrid electric vehicle and a current SOC of a power battery (Kuroda: “a power P (a positive value indicates a driving power and a negative value indicates a braking power) necessary to drive the vehicle has a pattern as shown in FIG. 3B” Col. 5 Lines 18-20); and
obtaining the initial electricity generation power according to the driving required power and the current SOC (Kuroda: “a power P (a positive value indicates a driving power and a negative value indicates a braking power) necessary to drive the vehicle has a pattern as shown in FIG. 3B” Col. 5 Lines 18-20, “whether the SOC at the start point of the scheduling section is around a preset lower limit value SOCmin or not” Col. 8 Lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 6, Kuroda teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein when the driving required power is constant, the initial electricity generation power is negatively correlated with the current SOC (Kuroda: Fig. 9C and 9D Element City, Note: Wherein it can be seen in Kuroda that during constant power phases the electricity generation power is negative); and when the current SOC is constant, the initial electricity generation power is positively correlated with the driving required power (Kuroda: Fig. 9C and 9D Element Highway, Note: Wherein it can be seen during the initial highway phase the constant SOC leads to positive required power).
Regarding claim 7, Kuroda teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining the driving required power of the hybrid electric vehicle and the current SOC of the power battery (Kuroda: “FIG. 9C shows the calculation result of the output P based on the road condition of FIG. 9A and the driving speed pattern of FIG. 9B” Col. 7 Lines 61-62, “whether the SOC at the start point of the scheduling section is around a preset lower limit value SOCmin or not, for example, whether the SOC is equal to SOCmin or not is determined” Col. 8 Lines 35-38); and
obtaining the position information of the hybrid electric vehicle, the proportions of driving in different vehicle speed ranges within the preset time, and the proportions of driving at different gradient ranges of the road on which the hybrid electric vehicle is located within the preset time when it is determined, based on the driving required power and the current SOC, that the hybrid electric vehicle needs to be controlled to generate electricity (Kuroda: “In step S5, an output (power) P(w) necessary for the driving is calculated by the following equation on the basis of the driving speed pattern of each section ... vsp vehicle velocity (m/sec), acc vehicle acceleration(m/sec2), g gravitational acceleration (m/sec2), and Θ inclination (rad) of road” Col. 7 Lines 48-65, “a driving schedule setting unit 16C of the controller 16 executes a subroutine shown in FIG. 10 and determines a charging/discharging schedule, that is, the operating schedule of the motor and the engine in the route to the destination” Col. 7 Line 66 – Col. 8 Line 3).
Regarding claim 8, Kuroda teaches the method according to claim 7, after the obtaining the driving required power of the hybrid electric vehicle and the current SOC of the power battery, the method further comprising:
determining a corresponding SOC electricity generation range according to the driving required power, and determining, if the current SOC falls within the SOC electricity generation range, that the hybrid electric vehicle needs to be controlled to generate electricity (Kuroda: “When the power is generated by the motor 1 while the vehicle drives at the constant speed of 50 km/h by the engine 2, as shown in FIG. 5, it is the best to increase the engine torque without changing the engine speed (rpm) and shift the operating point of the engine 2 onto the highest operative efficiency line. When the engine 2 is driven at the operating point, as shown in FIG. 5, an engine output of 8.8 kW is obtained. Even when an output 3.8 kW required for the constant drive at 50 km/h is deducted, power of 5 kW can be generated” Col. 5 Lines 43-52); or
determining a corresponding driving required power electricity generation range according to the current SOC, and determining, if the driving required power falls within the driving required power electricity generation range, that the hybrid electric vehicle needs to be controlled to generate electricity.
Regarding claim 9, Kuroda teaches an electricity generation apparatus for a hybrid electric vehicle, the apparatus comprising (Kuroda: “An embodiment of a driving control apparatus and method of a hybrid vehicle” Col. 3 Lines 24-26):
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 9, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 10, Kuroda teaches a hybrid electric vehicle, comprising the electricity generation apparatus for a hybrid electric vehicle according to claim 9 (Kuroda: “An embodiment of a driving control apparatus and method of a hybrid vehicle” Col. 3 Lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 11, Kuroda teaches a vehicle controller, comprising: a memory, a processor, and an electricity generation program of a hybrid electric vehicle stored in the memory and executable on the processor, the processor, when executing the program, implementing an electricity generation method for a hybrid electric vehicle, and the electricity generation method comprising: (Kuroda: “A controller 16 has necessary parts such as a microcomputer and a memory” Col. 4 Lines 15-16, “The controller 16 executes the program every predetermined time” Col. 6 Line 46):
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 12-14, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 2-4, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hyde et al. (20150239365) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of predictive vehicle control.
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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663