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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 6/24/2026. Applicant amended claims 1-3, 9, 11, 16 and 17; and canceled claim 12. Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regard to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 6/24/2026 obviate the instant claim objections – accordingly, the instant claim objections are withdrawn.
However, new grounds of objection have been identified; see below.
In regard to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 6/24/2026 have been fully 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.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 11 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claim 11, claim element “vehicle emissions control areas” lacks an article to establish antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/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.
As to claim 1, the recitation “heating a passenger cabin via an electrically powered device in response to a remote vehicle start request and the vehicle being in an enclosed area; and otherwise, comparing a financial expense of heating the passenger cabin via the electrically powered device against a financial expense of heating the passenger cabin via the internal combustion engine and a heater core, and activating a heating source with a lower financial expense” is vague and indefinite. Namely, the scope of “otherwise” is unclear. That is, it is unclear whether the comparing and activating steps are performed (i) when neither the remote vehicle start request nor the vehicle being in an enclosed are satisfied; (ii) when the remote vehicle start request is present but the vehicle is not in an enclosed area; or (iii) whenever the compound condition preceding “and otherwise” as a whole is not satisfied. For the purposes of examination, “and otherwise” is interpreted as “or,” and the interpretation of (iii) is assumed. In light of the above, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
As to claim 2, the recitation “where the financial expense estimates are calculated by: dividing a total amount of electric power to drive to the destination by a financial expense of electric power per unit of power for the electric machine exclusive driving mode; dividing an amount of fuel consumed by the internal combustion engine by a financial expense of fuel per unit volume for the internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode” is vague and indefinite. Specifically, “dividing a total amount of electric power to drive to the destination by a financial expense of electric power per unit of power” and “dividing an amount of fuel consumed by the internal combustion engine by a financial expense of fuel per unit volume” would respectively yield values with the units of: (unit_power)2/cost and (unit_fuel)2/cost. The foregoing values do not constitute financial expenses (i.e., a value with just the unit of cost). The specification does not provide further clarity: paras. [0059] and [0061] recite the same inverted operations, while para. [0060] recites multiplying the estimated amount of fuel consumed by the price of fuel per unit volume. Therefore, it is unclear how the claimed operations yield a financial expense. In light of the above, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
As to claim 3, the recitation “wherein the financial expense estimates further include an actual total amount of electric power” is vague and indefinite. Namely, it is unclear how financial expense estimate can include a quantity of power. The specification does not provide further clarity on this matter. In light of the above, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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(s) 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. (CN113858968A; “Qi”) in view of Christ et al. (US20140046592A1 “Christ”), in view of Eto et al. (US20240174123A1; “Eto”) and in view of Obayashi et al. (US20100312425A1; “Obayashi”)
As to independent claim 1, Qi discloses: a vehicle operating method comprising: activating a mode from a group of modes including an electric machine exclusive driving mode and a blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode in response to financial expense estimates to drive a vehicle to a destination via one of the electric machine exclusive driving mode and the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode for at least a portion of a trip to the destination (“For commuting, the vehicle can run on pure electric power, while for long distances, it can use an engine to generate electricity. When running on pure electric power, the vehicle is more economical, while when using an engine to generate electricity, the energy consumption is higher and the vehicle is less economical.” ¶ n0002. “When a user inputs an economical route request, the system obtains the initial location, destination, electricity price per kilowatt-hour, and fuel price per liter. It then determines whether the relationship between the electricity price per kilowatt-hour and fuel price per liter satisfies a first preset condition. If the first preset condition is met, the operating mode is determined to be pure electric mode, and the battery SOC value and charging station information are obtained.” ¶ n0008. “When the relationship between the price per kilowatt-hour of electricity and the price per liter of oil does not meet the first preset condition, the working mode is determined to be the range-extending mode; wherein, the range-extending mode is to use the range extender to generate electricity to drive the vehicle.” ¶ n0015.).
Qi fails to explicitly disclose: activating a mode from a group of modes including an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode, wherein the financial expense estimates include an estimate to drive a vehicle to a destination via the internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode.
Nevertheless, Christ teaches: activating a mode from a group of modes including an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode, wherein the financial expense estimates include an estimate to drive a vehicle to a destination via the internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode (“A method operates a hybrid drive operable selectively in a first operating mode powered by only an internal combustion engine or in a second operating mode powered by only an electric motor.” Abstract. “Each section of the route is assigned, figuratively speaking, a ‘price tag’ specifying two data items, namely: 1. information as to how high the advantage in terms of fuel economy will most likely be if the section of the route in question is driven in the second operating mode as compared to being driven in the first operating mode or in any other operating mode; and 2. the expected electrical energy demand in order to drive on the relevant section of the route in the second operating mode.” ¶¶ 19–21.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi to include the feature of: activating a mode from a group of modes including an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode, wherein the financial expense estimates include an estimate to drive a vehicle to a destination via the internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode, as taught by Christ, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to obtain an even better optimum use of the use of the drive energy (in the form of fuel and electrical energy) available in the vehicle.” (Christ, ¶ 5.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that extending Qi’s invention to include Christ’s engine exclusive mode would constitute an obvious extension of adding another well-known hybrid driving mode to select from.
The combination of Qi and Christ fails to explicitly disclose: financial expense estimates to drive a vehicle to a destination via one of the claimed modes with a passenger cabin climate control system activated.
Nevertheless, Eto teaches: calculating financial expense estimates to drive a vehicle to a destination of a driving mode with a passenger cabin climate control system activated (“Then, in step S110, the ECU 20 multiplies the product of the air conditioning operation probability X (0≤X≤1) and the air conditioning power consumption Pac [W] by a conversion coefficient k1 to calculate an air conditioning electricity consumption rate correction amount Cac [Wh/km].” ¶ 33. “Then, in step S112, the ECU 20 calculates a predicted electricity consumption rate Ep. The predicted electricity consumption rate Ep is calculated, for example, by subtracting the air conditioning electricity consumption rate correction amount Cac from the basic value Epb of the predicted electricity consumption rate Ep.” ¶ 34 and FIG. 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Qi and Christ to include the feature of: calculating financial expense estimates to drive a vehicle to a destination of a driving mode with a passenger cabin climate control system activated, as taught by Eto, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for achieving the effect of “ the predicted electricity consumption rate in the future travel can be calculated appropriately in consideration of the use of the air conditioning device.” (Eto, ¶ 7.)
The combination of Qi, Christ and Eto fails to explicitly disclose: heating a passenger cabin via an electrically powered device in response to a remote vehicle start request and the vehicle being in an enclosed area; and otherwise, comparing a financial expense of heating the passenger cabin via the electrically powered device against a financial expense of heating the passenger cabin via the internal combustion engine and a heater core, and activating a heating source with a lower financial expense.
Nevertheless, Obayashi discloses: comparing a financial expense of heating the passenger cabin via an electrically powered device against a financial expense of heating the passenger cabin via an internal combustion engine and a heater core, and activating a heating source with a lower financial expense (“The heat exchanger 40 [i.e., a heater core] is provided in its vicinity with the waste-heat electric generator 42 that performs electric power generation using the waste heat of the engine 10. Specifically, the waste-heat electric generator 42 is a means that converts the heat energy outputted from the heat exchanger 40 into electric power.” Emphasis added; ¶ 77 and FIG. 1. Continuing, a heat pump” receives input energy in the form of electric energy; furthermore, FIG. 1 illustrates that a battery 46 provides power to the compressor 32 (defined as corresponding to the heat pump). See ¶¶ 76, 106 and FIG. 1. “[W]hen it is determined that there is a heating request (Yes at step S40), control proceeds to step S42. At step S42, a system cost Ese in the case where the request is satisfied by the waste-heat heater alone is calculated in a manner of the above pattern (a). Then, at step S44, a system cost Esh in the case where the heating request is satisfied by the heat pump alone is calculated. Then, if the system cost Ese in the sole use of the waste-heat heater is larger than the system cost Esh in the sole use of the heat pump (Yes at step S46), the heat pump is selected (step S48). Otherwise (No at step S46), the waste-heat heater is selected (step S50).” ¶ 122 and FIG. 6. Finally, the cost may be “quantified by an amount of money” - ¶ 184; see also ¶¶ 183, 185.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Qi, Christ and Eto to include the feature of: comparing a financial expense of heating the passenger cabin via an electrically powered device against a financial expense of heating the passenger cabin via an internal combustion engine and a heater core, and activating a heating source with a lower financial expense, as taught by Obayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “for improving the criteria regarding which of the destinations should be supplied with the energy” (Obayashi, ¶ 10), thereby enhancing the energy management system of Qi-Christ-Eto.
As to claim 4, Qi discloses: where activating the mode includes activating the electric machine exclusive driving mode in further response to predicting the vehicle is able to reach the destination without activating an internal combustion engine during the trip (“When the estimated total mileage is less than the first mileage value, the vehicle is controlled to travel in pure electric mode, at which time the vehicle does not need to be charged or refueled.” ¶ n0099.).
As to claim 5, Qi discloses: where activating the mode includes activating the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode in further response to predicting the vehicle is not able to reach the destination without activating an internal combustion engine during the trip (“If the first preset condition is not met, the estimated total mileage is compared with the second mileage value; if the estimated total mileage is not less than the second mileage value, the vehicle is controlled to first travel at the maximum mileage in range-extended mode, and then continue to travel in pure electric mode.” ¶ n0100.).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Qi in view of Christ, in view of Eto and in view of Obayashi as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Engel et al. (DE102020200826A1; “Engel”) and Ragazzi et al. (US20190118613A1; “Ragazzi”).
As to claim 2, the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto and Obayashi fails to explicitly disclose: where the financial expense estimates are calculated by: dividing a total amount of electric power to drive to the destination by a financial expense of electric power per unit of power for the electric machine exclusive driving mode; dividing an amount of fuel consumed by the internal combustion engine by a financial expense of fuel per unit volume for the internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode; and estimating an amount of electric power consumed by the electric machine and an amount of fuel consumed by the internal combustion engine for the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode.
Nevertheless, Engel teaches: where the financial expense estimates are calculated by: dividing a total amount of electric power to drive to the destination by a financial expense of electric power per unit of power for the electric machine exclusive driving mode; dividing an amount of fuel consumed by the internal combustion engine by a financial expense of fuel per unit volume for the internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode; and estimating an amount of electric power consumed by the electric machine and an amount of fuel consumed by the internal combustion engine for the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode (A cost function for a plug-in hybrid vehicle is expressed by: “K = VKS * KKS + VEG * KEG + T * KT”, wherein K represents the travel costs for the entire journey, VKS represents the amount of fuel required for the entire journey, KKS represents the fuel price per fuel quantity unit, VEG represents the amount of electrical energy required for the entire travel route, and KEG represents the price of electrical energy per unit quantity unit. The cost is calculated for “purely internal combustion engine route sections, purely electric route sections and hybrid route sections.” See ¶ 26.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto and Obayashi with the feature of: where the financial expense estimates are calculated by: dividing a total amount of electric power to drive to the destination by a financial expense of electric power per unit of power for the electric machine exclusive driving mode; dividing an amount of fuel consumed by the internal combustion engine by a financial expense of fuel per unit volume for the internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode; and estimating an amount of electric power consumed by the electric machine and an amount of fuel consumed by the internal combustion engine for the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode, as taught by Engel, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is used for reducing operating costs. (See Engel, ¶ 9.) As illustrated by at least Engel, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the claimed calculations are conventional methods for calculating energy/fuel costs for a trip — online calculators are available online for providing drivers the ability to calculate said energy/fuel costs.1
The combination of Qi, Christ, Eto, Obayashi and Engel fails to explicitly disclose: where the passenger cabin climate control system includes three different heating sources.
Nevertheless, Ragazzi teaches: where the passenger cabin climate control system includes three different heating sources (“Coolant that flows from the outlet 304 to the HVAC electric pump 326 [that] may flow through a thermal generator 318 (such as an electric heater). The thermal generator 318 may include a resistive wire heater, a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) heater, a heat pump, or other electric heat source.” Emphasis added; ¶ 25 and FIG. 3.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto, Obayashi and Engel to include the feature of: where the passenger cabin climate control system includes three different heating sources, as taught by Ragazzi, with a reasonable expectation of success because these are well-known components of electrified (including hybrid) vehicles for heating a passenger cabin. (See Ragazzi, ¶¶ 12 and 25.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Qi in view of Christ, in view of Eto, and in view of Obayashi, in view of Engel and in view Ragazzi as applied to claim 2 – further in view of Kawashiri et al. (US20240328799A1; “Kawashiri”)
As to claim 3, the combination of Qi, Christ and Eto fails to explicitly disclose:
where the financial expense estimates further include an actual total amount of electric power to heat the passenger cabin to a requested temperature using an electric heater comprising a heat pump.
Nevertheless, Obayashi teaches: where the financial expense estimates further include an actual total amount of electric power to heat the passenger cabin to a requested temperature using an electric heater comprising a heat pump (A heat pump” receives input energy in the form of electric energy; furthermore, FIG. 1 illustrates that a battery 46 provides power to the compressor 32 (defined as corresponding to the heat pump). See ¶¶ 76, 106 and FIG. 1. “The information correlated to the heat pump includes efficiency information in converting requested heating into input energy. In addition to the efficiency information, the information correlated to the heat pump includes cost information calculated from the efficiency information every time the efficiency information is obtained.” ¶ 95. “an input electric power is calculated for the case where insufficiency of the waste-heat heater is compensated by the heat pump, based on the efficiency information. Then, the resultant input electric power is multiplied by the average cost CE of the electric power domain to calculate the cost that will be incurred in the heat pump.” ¶ 113. “[L]et us assume that the cost of the electric power domain is ‘20-yen/kWh’, and the requested heating of the interior is ‘3 kW’. In the case where the air conditioner 76 is used, it is taken into account that the heating performance changes according to the environments where the air conditioner 76 is placed, while the output of the compressor remains the same. Taking this into account, the requested heating is converted into the input electric energy of the compressor based on the environmental information. … The performance factor COP may be set as the environmental information based on the current temperature of the interior. For example, when the performance factor COP is 3, the electric power to be used by the air conditioner 76 is ‘3 kW/3=1 kW’. Accordingly, the cost for the case where the air conditioner 76 is used is ‘1 kW×20-yen/kWh=20-yen/h’.” ¶ 168.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Qi, Christ and Eto to include the feature of: where the financial expense estimates further include an actual total amount of electric power to heat the passenger cabin to a requested temperature using an electric heater comprising a heat pump, as taught by Obayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “for improving the criteria regarding which of the destinations should be supplied with the energy” (Obayashi, ¶ 10), thereby enhancing the energy management system of Qi-Christ-Eto.
The combination of Qi, Christ, Eto and Obayashi fails to explicitly disclose: where the three different heating sources include a positive temperature coefficient heater, a heat pump, and a heater core.
Nevertheless, Ragazzi teaches: where the three different heating sources include a positive temperature coefficient heater, a heat pump, and a heater core (“FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system 300 also referred to as a coolant subsystem that includes an internal combustion engine (ICE) 302 and a heater core 320 … Coolant that flows from the outlet 304 to the HVAC electric pump 326 [that] may flow through a thermal generator 318 (such as an electric heater). The thermal generator 318 may include a resistive wire heater, a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) heater, a heat pump, or other electric heat source.” ¶ 25 and FIG. 3.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto and Obayashi to include the feature of: where the three different heating sources include a positive temperature coefficient heater, a heat pump, and a heater core, as taught by Ragazzi, with a reasonable expectation of success because these are well-known components of electrified (including hybrid) vehicles for heating a passenger cabin. (See Ragazzi, ¶¶ 12 and 25.)
The combination of Qi, Christ, Eto, Obayashi and Ragazzi fails to explicitly disclose:
where the financial expense estimates further include an actual total amount of electric power to heat the passenger cabin to a requested temperature using an electric heater comprising a heat pump for a time duration of the trip; and
where the mode is activated in further response to whether a total amount of battery power available to both the electric machine and the electric heater is sufficient to cover both propulsion and passenger cabin heating demands.
Nevertheless, Kawashiri teaches:
calculating a total amount of electric power to heat a passenger cabin to a requested temperature using an electric heater for a time duration of a trip (“In the calculation of the total power consumption, travel power consumption used for traveling the travel route and the heating power consumption due to heating during traveling are calculated and added together.” ¶ 106. “The calculation of the heating power consumption is performed by, for example, using information such as the time of passing through each point on the travel route and a predicted temperature at the time of passing through the point.” ¶ 107. “In a case where a scheduled departure time has been set, in step S109, the control device 1 may calculate total power consumption that is electric power consumed until the vehicle 100 reaches the destination when the vehicle 100 departs at the scheduled departure time.” ¶ 109.); and
where a mode is activated in further response to whether a total amount of battery power available to both the electric machine and the electric heater is sufficient to cover both propulsion and passenger cabin heating demands (“The determination unit F4 adds together the travel power consumption and the heating power consumption described above to calculate total power consumption. The determination unit F4 compares the total power consumption with the remaining battery capacity of the traveling battery 101 kept at an end-of-charge voltage to determine whether to make an alternative to a travel plan.” ¶ 57. “In step S110, the control device 1 acquires the current remaining battery capacity of the traveling battery 101 of the vehicle 100 and compares the current remaining battery capacity with the total power consumption to determine whether the current remaining battery capacity is sufficient.” ¶ 110. “If the total power consumption calculated in step S109 is less than the current remaining battery capacity, the control device 1 determines ‘Yes’ in step S110. In this case, the control device 1 skips the processing of step S111 and step S112 and proceeds to the processing of step S113.” ¶ 111. “On the other hand, if the total power consumption calculated in step S109 is greater than or equal to the current remaining battery capacity, the control device 1 determines in step S110 that the current remaining battery capacity is insufficient, and proceeds to step S111.” ¶ 112. See also FIGS. 6-7.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto, Obayashi and Ragazzi to include the features of: calculating a total amount of electric power to heat a passenger cabin to a requested temperature using an electric heater for a time duration of a trip; and where a mode is activated in further response to whether a total amount of battery power available to both the electric machine and the electric heater is sufficient to cover both propulsion and passenger cabin heating demands, as taught by Kawashiri, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for mitigating a standstill situation associated with running out of electrical energy, thereby enhancing the power management system yielded by the prior art. (See Kawashiri, ¶¶ 16-19)
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Qi in view of Christ, in view of Eto and in view of Obayashi as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Ragazzi
As to claim 7, the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto and Obayashi fails to explicitly disclose: where the passenger cabin climate control system being activated includes a positive temperature coefficient heater being activated.
Nevertheless, Ragazzi teaches: where the passenger cabin climate control system being activated includes a positive temperature coefficient heater being activated (“The thermal generator 318 may include a … a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) heater.” ¶ 25 and FIG. 3.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto and Obayashi to include the feature of: where the passenger cabin climate control system being activated includes a positive temperature coefficient heater being activated, as taught by Ragazzi, with a reasonable expectation of success because a PTC heater is a well-known component of electrified (including hybrid) vehicles for heating a passenger cabin. (See Ragazzi, ¶¶ 12 and 25.)
As to claim 8, the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto and Obayashi fails to explicitly disclose: the passenger cabin climate control system being activated includes a heat pump being activated.
Nevertheless, Ragazzi teaches: the passenger cabin climate control system being activated includes a heat pump being activated (“The thermal generator 318 may include … a heat pump.” ¶ 25 and FIG. 3.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto and Obayashi to include the feature of: the passenger cabin climate control system being activated includes a heat pump being activated, as taught by Ragazzi, with a reasonable expectation of success because a heat pump is a well-known component of electrified (including hybrid) vehicles for heating a passenger cabin. (See Ragazzi, ¶¶ 12 and 25.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Qi in view of Christ, in view of Eto and in view of Obayashi as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Chen et al. (CN103707889A; “Chen”).
As to claim 6, the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto and Obayashi fails to explicitly disclose: where activating the mode includes activating the internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode in further response to a traction battery state of charge being less than a threshold state of charge.
Nevertheless, Chen teaches: where activating a mode includes activating an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode in response to a traction battery state of charge being less than a threshold state of charge (“If the battery SOC is less than the threshold SOC…, then pure engine mode is used.” ¶ 31.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Qi, Christ, Eto and Obayashi to include the feature of: where activating a mode includes activating an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode in response to a traction battery state of charge being less than a threshold state of charge, as taught by Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to achieve optimal fuel economy for the entire vehicle” and to “take into account various requirements such as engine emissions, battery life,” etc. (Chen, ¶ 5.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ragazzi in view of Baudisch et al. (US20230053614A1; “Baudisch”), in view of Cai et al. (CN113942490A; “Cai”) and in view of Park et al. (US20190126907A1; “Park”)
As to independent claim 9, Ragazzi discloses a system comprising:
an internal combustion engine (“engine 118” - ¶ 16 and FIG. 2.);
a heater core in fluidic communication with the internal combustion engine (“heater core 320” – ¶ 25 and FIG. 3.);
an electric machine (“one or more electric machines 114” – ¶ 16 and FIG. 2.);
a climate control system including a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) heater and a heat pump (“The thermal generator 318 may include …, a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) heater, a heat pump.” ¶ 25 and FIG. 3.); and
one or more controllers including executable instructions stored in non-transitory memory (“controller” - ¶ 32.).
Ragazzi fails to explicitly disclose: engaging a mode from a group of modes including an electric machine exclusive driving mode and a blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode at a beginning of a trip according to a distance to a predetermined destination,
Nevertheless, Baudisch teaches: engaging a mode from a group of modes including an electric machine exclusive driving mode and a blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode at a beginning of a trip according to a distance to a predetermined destination (“After the route 6 to the destination 7 has been determined, for example by means of the navigation system of the hybrid vehicle 1, the control device 5 checks whether a distance to the destination 7 is greater than a range of the hybrid vehicle 1 that can be covered in a purely electric manner. If this is the case, the control device 5 can automatically put the hybrid vehicle 1 into a hybrid mode in which therefore both the internal combustion engine 2 and the electric drive machine 3 can be used to drive the hybrid vehicle 1.” ¶ 22. “If however the distance to the destination 7 is not greater than the range of the hybrid vehicle 1 that can be covered in a purely electric manner, the control device 5 puts the hybrid vehicle 1 immediately into a purely electric driving mode.” ¶ 25.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ragazzi with the feature of: engaging a mode from a group of modes including an electric machine exclusive driving mode and a blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode at a beginning of a trip according to a distance to a predetermined destination, as taught by Baudisch, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this feature is useful for achieving the effect that “the most efficient operating mode or driving mode is always activated.” (Baudisch, ¶ 10.)
The combination of Ragazzi and Baudisch fails to explicitly disclose: engaging a mode including an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode at a beginning of a trip according to a distance to a predetermined destination.
Nevertheless, Cai teaches: engaging a mode including an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode according to a distance to a predetermined destination (“S2211. When the distance z between the current location and the destination is less than the distance x between the current location and the charging station X, the journey from 0 to A uses pure electric mode, and the journey from A to Z uses pure engine mode; the journey ends upon reaching the destination.” ¶ n0015.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ragazzi and Baudisch with the feature of: engaging a mode including an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode according to a distance to a predetermined destination, as taught by Cai, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to provide a control method and control device for a series hybrid electric vehicle that can use more electricity and less fuel, thus saving operating costs.” (Cai, ¶ n0003.)
The combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch and Cai fails to explicitly disclose:
where the executable instructions further cause the one or more controllers to conserve power in a traction battery by maintaining a threshold state of charge by activating the internal combustion engine in response to the traction battery state of charge being within a predetermined range of the threshold state of charge when a route to the predetermined destination includes a vehicle emissions control area,
where the threshold state of charge is adjusted according to a geographic size of the vehicle emissions control area, and
where the internal combustion engine is stopped and the vehicle is propelled via the traction battery and the electric machine when the vehicle enters the vehicle emissions control area.
Nevertheless, Park teaches:
cause one or more controllers to conserve power in a traction battery by maintaining a threshold state of charge by activating the internal combustion engine in response to the traction battery state of charge being within a predetermined range of the threshold state of charge when a route to the predetermined destination includes a vehicle emissions control area (“When distance (or time) to the low-emission zone is less than a predetermined reference (1, 5, 10, 20 or 30 minutes, or 0.5, 1, 2, 5 mile), the controller estimates a first State of Charge (SOC) of the vehicle's battery (supplying power to motor 140) enough to drive through the first section of low-emission zone without operating the vehicle's combustion engine.” ¶ 36. “When it is determined that the current SOC is sufficient to drive through low-emission zone (greater than the first SOC), the controller prevents SOC of the battery from falling below the first SOC by increasing a reference SOC to operate the engine 110 for battery charging (FIG. 9, updating CS/CD transition reference updating) from the vehicle's current position until the vehicle reaches the low-emission zone.” ¶ 38.),
where the threshold state of charge is adjusted according to a geographic size of the vehicle emissions control area (“The green zone required energy for each green zone can be calculated in the form of battery state of charge (SOC) using the average vehicle speed information and the inclination information of each green zone. In more detail, the average battery consumption rate in the corresponding section can be obtained according to the vehicle speed information and the inclination information, and the green zone required energy can be calculated by multiplying the average battery consumption rate by the length of the corresponding section.” Emphasis added; ¶ 80 and FIG. 7.), and
where the internal combustion engine is stopped and the vehicle is propelled via the traction battery and the electric machine when the vehicle enters the vehicle emissions control area (“On entering the low-emission zone, the vehicle drives in a EV driving mode without operating the engine.” ¶ 38.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch and Cai with the feature of: cause one or more controllers to conserve power in a traction battery by maintaining a threshold state of charge by activating the internal combustion engine in response to the traction battery state of charge being within a predetermined range of the threshold state of charge when a route to the predetermined destination includes a vehicle emissions control area, where the threshold state of charge is adjusted according to a geographic size of the vehicle emissions control area, and where the internal combustion engine is stopped and the vehicle is propelled via the traction battery and the electric machine when the vehicle enters the vehicle emissions control area, as taught by Park, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “minimizing engine operation in an area where reduction of exhaust gas is recommended for reasons such as regulation, environment, safety, and pedestrian density, while satisfying efficiency.” (Park, ¶ 54.)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ragazzi in view of Baudisch, in view of Cai and in view of Park as applied to claim 9 — further in view of Wu (CN116639110A; “Wu”).
As to claim 10, the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai and Park fails to explicitly disclose: cause the one or more controllers to engage the mode in further response to whether or not passenger cabin heating is predicted to be activated during the trip.
Nevertheless, Wu teaches: engage a mode in response to whether or not passenger cabin heating is predicted to be activated during the trip (“The vehicle operation information and traffic information are input into the energy consumption prediction model to obtain the predicted energy consumption of the target vehicle during the driving process when the vehicle air conditioner heats up to the target temperature while the predicted energy management function is turned on; wherein, the predicted energy consumption includes the heating power consumption of the vehicle air conditioner and the driving fuel consumption of the target vehicle.” ¶ n0008. “The predicted energy consumption and the predicted fuel consumption are compared, and based on the comparison results, the predicted energy management function is controlled to be turned on or off during the driving process when the vehicle's air conditioning is heating to the target temperature.” ¶ n0010. “The predictive energy management function includes: … controlling the target vehicle to adopt a pure electric drive mode in the engine inefficiency range, and controlling the target vehicle to adopt a parallel charging mode in the engine efficiency range.” ¶ n0011. See also ¶ n0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai and Park with the feature of: engage a mode in response to whether or not passenger cabin heating is predicted to be activated during the trip, as taught by Wu, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to achieve “fuel saving and emission reduction” in hybrid vehicles. (See Wu, ¶ n0002.)
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ragazzi in view of Baudisch, in view of Cai, in view of Park and in view of Wu as applied to claim 10 — further in view of Belt et al. (US20180056973A1; “Belt”).
As to claim 11, Ragazzi fails to explicitly disclose: cause the one or more controllers to engage the mode in further response to vehicle emissions control areas along a route to the predetermined destination.
Nevertheless, Baudisch teaches: engage a mode in further response to vehicle emissions control areas along a route to the predetermined destination (“Provision is made for the hybrid vehicle to be put into the hybrid mode only once the hybrid vehicle is no longer in a zero emission zone. … [A] current position of the hybrid vehicle can be compared with map data or other data containing information about where zero emission zones in which internal combustion engine operation of vehicles is entirely banned are located. If, …, it is established after determining the route to the destination that the distance to the destination is greater than the range of the hybrid vehicle that can be covered in a purely electric manner but the hybrid vehicle is in a zero emission zone, the hybrid vehicle is put into the hybrid mode only when the hybrid vehicle leaves this zero emission zone.” ¶ 14. See also ¶ 24 and FIG. 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ragazzi with the feature of: engage the mode in further response to vehicle emissions control areas along a route to the predetermined destination, as taught by Baudisch, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this feature is useful for achieving the effect that “the most efficient operating mode or driving mode is always activated” while also accounting for vehicle emissions control areas (See Baudisch, ¶¶ 10, 14.)
The combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai, Park and Wu fails to explicitly disclose: further comprising additional executable instructions that cause the one or more controllers to engage the mode in further response to a human driver request to activate the electric machine exclusive driving mode.
Nevertheless, Belt teaches: engage a mode in further response to a human driver request to activate the electric machine exclusive driving mode (“The user may have the ability to select among several operating modes.” ¶ 17. “Another user-selectable operating mode is an Electric Vehicle (EV) mode 20 (sometimes referred to as EV-NOW), where the electric motor is primarily used for vehicle propulsion, depleting the battery up to its maximal allowable discharging rate under certain driving patterns/cycles.” ¶ 18.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai, Park and Wu with the feature of: engage a mode in further response to a human driver request to activate the electric machine exclusive driving mode, as taught by Belt, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “to extend operational flexibility” of a hybrid vehicle. (Belt, ¶ 17; see also ¶ 20.) Indeed, it is a well-known principle in the vehicle control art to enable a user to switch between vehicle operating modes — Belt provides the explicit teaching that such was known in the art to apply to hybrid vehicle operating modes.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ragazzi in view of Baudisch, in view of Cai and in view of Park as applied to claim 9 — further in view of Qi and in view of Christ.
As to claim 13, the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai and Park fails to explicitly disclose: additional executable instructions that cause the one or more controllers to estimate financial expenses for engaging each of the electric machine exclusive driving mode, the internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode, and the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode.
Nevertheless, Qi teaches: estimate financial expenses for engaging each of the electric machine exclusive driving mode and the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode (“For commuting, the vehicle can run on pure electric power, while for long distances, it can use an engine to generate electricity. When running on pure electric power, the vehicle is more economical, while when using an engine to generate electricity, the energy consumption is higher and the vehicle is less economical.” ¶ n0002. “When a user inputs an economical route request, the system obtains the initial location, destination, electricity price per kilowatt-hour, and fuel price per liter. It then determines whether the relationship between the electricity price per kilowatt-hour and fuel price per liter satisfies a first preset condition. If the first preset condition is met, the operating mode is determined to be pure electric mode, and the battery SOC value and charging station information are obtained.” ¶ n0008. “When the relationship between the price per kilowatt-hour of electricity and the price per liter of oil does not meet the first preset condition, the working mode is determined to be the range-extending mode; wherein, the range-extending mode is to use the range extender to generate electricity to drive the vehicle.” ¶ n0015.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai and Park with the feature of: estimate financial expenses for engaging each of the electric machine exclusive driving mode and the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode, as taught by Qi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for optimizing energy distribution in range-extended electric vehicles to operate said vehicles more economically. (See Qi, ¶¶ n0002–n0004.)
The combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai, Park and Qi fails to explicitly disclose: estimate financial expenses for engaging an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode.
Nevertheless, Christ teaches: estimate financial expenses for engaging an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode (“A method operates a hybrid drive operable selectively in a first operating mode powered by only an internal combustion engine or in a second operating mode powered by only an electric motor.” Abstract. “Each section of the route is assigned, figuratively speaking, a ‘price tag’ specifying two data items, namely: 1. information as to how high the advantage in terms of fuel economy will most likely be if the section of the route in question is driven in the second operating mode as compared to being driven in the first operating mode or in any other operating mode; and 2. the expected electrical energy demand in order to drive on the relevant section of the route in the second operating mode.” ¶¶ 19–21.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai, Park and Qi to include the feature of: estimate financial expenses for engaging an internal combustion engine exclusive driving mode, as taught by Christ, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to obtain an even better optimum use of the use of the drive energy (in the form of fuel and electrical energy) available in the vehicle.” (Christ, ¶ 5.)
As to claim 14, the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai and Park fails to explicitly disclose: where the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode is engaged at a start of the trip in response to the distance is greater than an electric machine exclusive driving mode range.
Nevertheless, Qi teaches: where the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode is engaged at a start of the trip in response to the distance is greater than an electric machine exclusive driving mode range (“If the first preset condition is not met, the estimated total mileage is compared with the second mileage value; if the estimated total mileage is not less than the second mileage value, the vehicle is controlled to first travel at the maximum mileage in range-extended mode, and then continue to travel in pure electric mode.” ¶ n0100.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai and Park with the feature of: where the blended internal combustion engine and electric machine driving mode is engaged at a start of the trip in response to the distance is greater than an electric machine exclusive driving mode range, as taught by Qi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for optimizing energy distribution in range-extended electric vehicles to operate said vehicles more economically. (See Qi, ¶¶ n0002–n0004.)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ragazzi in view of Baudisch, in view of Cai and in view of Park as applied to claim 9 — further in view of Sim et al. (KR101684146B1; “Sim”).
As to claim 15, the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai and Park fails to explicitly disclose: further comprising additional executable instructions that cause the one or more controllers to activate the PTC heater or the heat pump while operating in the electric machine exclusive driving mode in response to ambient temperature.
Nevertheless, Sim teaches: cause one or more controllers to activate a PTC heater while operating in the electric machine exclusive driving mode in response to ambient temperature (“A Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) refers to a vehicle that uses both an engine and a motor as power sources to improve fuel efficiency and reduce exhaust emissions, and includes driving modes such as an Electric Vehicle (EV) mode that utilizes motor power and an HEV mode that uses both engine and motor power.” ¶ 2. “The present invention focuses on varying the operating mode of a PTC heater into a low-load mode, such as a general mode, medium-load mode, or high-load mode, by considering the current operating level of the PTC heater and ambient temperature conditions.” ¶ 24.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ragazzi, Baudisch, Cai and Park with the feature of: cause one or more controllers to activate a PTC heater while operating in the electric machine exclusive driving mode in response to ambient temperature, as taught by Sim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for improving fuel efficiency in relation to a hybrid vehicle equipped with a PTC heater. (Sim, ¶ 1.)
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon pertains to Applicant’s disclosure.
Patel (US20150298523A1) discloses: an auxiliary heating system, which may comprise a PTC electric heater powered by a battery, that heats a passenger cabin independently of an internal combustion engine and may be activated by a wireless remote transmitter or smartphone; recognized that combustion byproducts from the heater may be undesirably released in an enclosed space (See ¶¶ 5, 10, 21, 28).
Inokuchi (US20220397086A1) discloses: a hybrid vehicle which begins battery-powered cabin air conditioning on a remote operation request and, before staring the engine to supplement that conditioning, determines whether the vehicle is parked indoors, wherein the engine start is withheld or prohibited when the vehicle is indoors to avoid exhaust degrading the indoor and cabin environment (See ¶¶ 7-9, 31-35 and FIG. 3.).
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is 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 Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
1 See, e.g., https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/
Prosecution Insights