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
Pending
1-8, 10-21
Cancelled
9
35 U.S.C. 103
1-8, 10-21
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 12/23/2025, which are in response to USPTO Office Action mailed 10/21/2025. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered with the results that follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 11/04/2025 and 11/05/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno (US 2013/0184921 A1, “Ueno”) and further in view of Maleki (US 2022/021691 A1, “Maleki”), and Aoyama et al. (US 6,083,138 A, “Aoyama”).
Regarding claim 1: Ueno teaches: A hybrid vehicle, the hybrid vehicle comprising: ([0002])
a hybrid powertrain including: a motor-generator unit; a battery electrically connected to the motor-generator unit; [. . .]; an engine; and a transmission engageably connected to the engine and the motor-generator unit, and ([0030] FIG. 1; [0031])
a controller for controlling the hybrid powertrain, ([0031]; [0033]), [. . .],
wherein the controller determines a state of charge of the battery [. . .], ([0043])
wherein, [. . .], the controller is configured to automatically select a shift schedule from a plurality of shift schedules, based on the determined state of charge of the battery, and ([0011]. [0038]; [0041]; [0043]; [0049] FIG. 4; [0057]; [0066])
wherein the controller controls the transmission based on the selected shift schedule ([0011]).
However, Ueno does not explicitly teach: a state of charge sensor coupled to the battery; wherein the controller is in communication with the state of charge sensor; [state of charge of the battery] based on one or more inputs from the state of charge sensor; wherein, upon reaching a trigger speed, the controller is configured to automatically select a shift schedule.
Maleki teaches: [. . .]; [. . .], [. . .], wherein, upon reaching a trigger speed, the controller is configured to automatically select a shift schedule from a plurality of shift schedules, based on the determined state of charge of the battery ([0234]).
Ueno and Maleki are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle controls and shift schedules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ueno with the aspects of Maleki to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a hybrid vehicle that selects a shift schedule for the vehicle based on the state of charge of the battery and a vehicle trigger speed. The motivation for modification would have been to improve the speed and distance control performance, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (Maleki, [0291]), and the energy efficiency and safety of the vehicle (Maleki, [0295]). Unless otherwise specified, the motivation for modification of claim 1 is similarly applied to those claims that depend upon claim 1.
However, Ueno-Maleki do not explicitly teach: a state of charge sensor coupled to the battery; wherein the controller is in communication with the state of charge sensor, [state of charge of the battery] based on one or more inputs from the state of charge sensor.
Aoyama teaches: a state of charge sensor coupled to the battery; wherein the controller is in communication with the state of charge sensor, [state of charge of the battery] based on one or more inputs from the state of charge sensor (Col. 3: input section includes a battery SOC (state of charge) sensor. Col. 4: battery SOC sensor 26 is a sensing system for sensing the state of charge (SOC) of the main battery. Col. 6: "BATTERY SOC" indicates the state of charge sensed by the battery SOC sensing system. Col. 7: If, in this operating mode, the SOC of the main battery becomes too low, the control system renders the motor inoperative, supplies the fuel to the engine 2 to operate the engine 2, and engages the clutch 3 half slippingly to start or accelerate the vehicle, as shown in FIG. 9. If, however, the main battery 15 falls in the too-low SOC state, the control system, as shown in FIG. 9, renders the motor 4 inoperative, instead operates the engine 2 by supplying the fuel, and engages the clutch 3 to drive the vehicle with the driving force of the engine 2. In case of the too low SOC state of the main battery 15, the control system performs the power generation of the motor 1 and supply the generated power to the main battery 15 and the oil pump motor 10, as shown in FIG. 9).
Ueno-Maleki and Aoyama are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle controls and shift schedules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ueno-Maleki with the aspects of Aoyama to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a hybrid vehicle with state of charge sensor coupled to the battery; wherein the controller is in communication with the state of charge sensor, and a state of charge of the battery is based on one or more inputs from the state of charge sensor. The motivation for modification would have been to more efficiently utilize the stored energy of the battery by monitoring the state of charge of the battery and switching the source of the driving force between the engine and the motor accordingly (Aoyama, Col. 1). Unless otherwise specified, the motivation for modification of claim 1 is similarly applied to those claims that depend upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The hybrid vehicle of claim 1, further comprising an inertial measurement unit (Maleki: [0120]), and
wherein the controller is configured to measure a grade or slope of a terrain on which the vehicle is operating based on information from the inertial measurement unit (Maleki: [0425]), and
wherein the selection of the shift schedule by the controller is further based on the grade or slope of the terrain on which the vehicle is operating (Ueno: [0041]; [0036]; [0038]; Maleki: [0234]). The motivation for modification would have been to improve the speed and distance control performance, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (Maleki, [0291]), and the energy efficiency and safety of the vehicle (Maleki, [0295]).
Regarding claim 3: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The hybrid vehicle of claim 1, wherein the trigger speed is a convoy speed (Ueno: [0041]; [0055]; Maleki: [0234]).
Regarding claim 4: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The hybrid vehicle of claim 1, wherein the plurality of shift schedules includes a mechanical shift schedule, a hybrid shift schedule, and a hybrid performance shift schedule (Ueno: [0035]; [0036]; [0038]; [0043]; [0050]; [0054]; [0070]).
Regarding claim 5: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The hybrid vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a user interface, and wherein one of a plurality of drive modes is selectable from the user interface (Ueno: [0030]; [0041]; [0052]; [0050]; [0083]).
Regarding claim 6: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The hybrid vehicle of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the shift schedule based on a drive mode selected from the user interface (Ueno: [0030]; [0041]; [0050]; [0083]; [0055]).
Regarding claim 7: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The hybrid vehicle of claim 1, wherein, when the hybrid vehicle is above the trigger speed, the controller automatically changes the shift schedule based on changes to the state of charge of the battery (Ueno: [0011]. [0035]-[0036]; [0038]; [0041]; [0043]; [0050]; [0055]; [0057]; Maleki: [0234]).
Regarding claim 8: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The hybrid vehicle of claim 1, further comprising an engine speed sensor (Ueno: [0043]; Maleki: [0432]). The motivation for modification would have been to improve the speed and distance control performance, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (Maleki, [0291]), and the energy efficiency and safety of the vehicle (Maleki, [0295]).
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 corresponds in scope with claim 1 and is similarly rejected. Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: A method of selecting a shift schedule for a hybrid vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: (Ueno: [0002] driving mode control device, a hybrid vehicle, a driving mode control method, and a computer program) obtaining a trigger speed by the hybrid vehicle, the hybrid vehicle having a controller and a hybrid powertrain, wherein the hybrid powertrain includes: (Ueno: [0041]; [0055]. [0031]; [0033]. Maleki: [0234]).
The motivation for modification for combining Ueno and Maleki would have been to improve the speed and distance control performance, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (Maleki, [0291]), and the energy efficiency and safety of the vehicle (Maleki, [0295]). The motivation for modification to combine Ueno-Maleki and Aoyama would have been to more efficiently utilize the stored energy of the battery by monitoring the state of charge of the battery and switching the source of the driving force between the engine and the motor accordingly (Aoyama, Col. 1). Unless otherwise specified, the motivation for modifications of claim 10 are similarly applied to those claims that depend upon claim 10.
Regarding claim 11: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The method of claim 10, further comprising the step of determining a grade or slope of a terrain on which the hybrid vehicle is operating (Maleki: [0425]), and
wherein the selecting one of the plurality of shift schedules is further based on the grade or slope of the terrain on which the hybrid vehicle is operating (Ueno: [0041]; [0036]; [0038]; Maleki: [0234]). The motivation for modification would have been to improve the speed and distance control performance, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (Maleki, [0291]), and the energy efficiency and safety of the vehicle (Maleki, [0295]).
Regarding claim 12: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The method of claim 11, wherein the hybrid vehicle further includes an inertial measurement unit for measuring the grade or slope of the terrain (Maleki: [0120]; [0425]). The motivation for modification would have been to improve the speed and distance control performance, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (Maleki, [0291]), and the energy efficiency and safety of the vehicle (Maleki, [0295]).
Regarding claim 13: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The method of claim 10, wherein the trigger speed is a convoy speed (Ueno: [0041]; [0055]; Maleki: [0234]).
Regarding claim 14: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The method of claim 10, wherein the method includes selecting a drive mode from a plurality of drive modes, wherein each drive mode includes a different set of shift schedules, and wherein the drive modes include mechanical shift schedule, a hybrid shift schedule, and a hybrid performance shift schedule (Ueno: [0035] ; [0036]; [0038]; [0043]; [0050]; [0054]; [0070]).
Regarding claim 15: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The method of claim 14, wherein the hybrid vehicle further includes a user interface, and wherein the drive mode is selectable from the user interface (Ueno: [0030]; [0041]; [0052]; [0050]; [0083]).
Regarding claim 16: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The method of claim 10, wherein, when the hybrid vehicle is above the trigger speed, the controller automatically changes the shift schedule based on the state of charge of the battery (Ueno: [0011]. [0035]-[0036]; [0038]; [0041]; [0043]; [0050]; [0055]; [0057]; Maleki: [0234]).
Regarding claim 17: Claim 17 corresponds in scope with claim 1 and is similarly rejected. Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: A controller for a hybrid vehicle, the controller configured to (Ueno: [0002] driving mode control device, a hybrid vehicle, a driving mode control method, and a computer program): determine when the hybrid vehicle has obtained a trigger speed, the hybrid vehicle including (Ueno: [0041]; [0055]. [0031]; [0033]. Maleki: [0234]). The motivation for modification for combining Ueno and Maleki would have been to improve the speed and distance control performance, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (Maleki, [0291]), and the energy efficiency and safety of the vehicle (Maleki, [0295]).
The motivation for modification to combine Ueno-Maleki and Aoyama would have been to more efficiently utilize the stored energy of the battery by monitoring the state of charge of the battery and switching the source of the driving force between the engine and the motor accordingly (Aoyama, Col. 1). Unless otherwise specified, the motivation for modifications of claim 17 are similarly applied to those claims that depend upon claim 17.
Regarding claim 18: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The controller of claim 17, wherein the controller is further configured to determine a grade or slope of a terrain on which the vehicle is operating (Maleki: [0425]), and
select one of the plurality of shift schedules based in part on a grade or slope of the terrain on which the vehicle is operating (Ueno: [0041]; [0036]; [0038]; Maleki: [0234]). The motivation for modification would have been to improve the speed and distance control performance, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (Maleki, [0291]), and the energy efficiency and safety of the vehicle (Maleki, [0295]).
Regarding claim 19: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The controller of claim 17, wherein the controller is configured to select between sets of shifts schedules depending on a drive mode selected from a plurality of drive modes, wherein the drive modes include a mechanical drive mode, a hybrid drive mode, and a hybrid performance drive mode. (Ueno: [0035]; [0036]; [0038]; [0043]; [0050]; [0054]; [0070]).
Regarding claim 20: Ueno-Maleki-Aoyama further teach: The controller of claim 17, wherein,(Ueno: [0035]-[0036]; [0038]; [0041]; [0043]; [0050]; [0055]; [0057]; Maleki: [0234]).
Regarding claim 21: Ueno-Maleki further teach: The controller of claim 19, wherein the controller is in communication with a user interface, and wherein the user interface is configured to receive a user selection of one drive mode of the plurality of drive modes (Maleki: [0344] user and vehicle interaction, including conveyance of information, can occur via a user interface. It is appreciated user and vehicle interaction and interfacing can be associated with various aspects of operating a vehicle and performance objectives. [0352] analysis system activities can depend upon a vehicle operation mode. user interface or HMI can be used to indicate or select a mode of operation that corresponds to a level of vehicle operation monitoring and control assistance capabilities. Characteristics (e.g., amount, type, etc.) of user interaction and associated user interfacing with a vehicle can vary according to the mode selection and corresponding level of vehicle operation monitoring and control assistance capabilities. [0353] user interface can include indications of vehicle speed, RPM, engine condition warning (e.g., overheating, low oil, battery problems, etc.), status of auxiliary features (e.g., such as headlights, air conditioning, emergency/parking brake, etc.), and so on. The convenient and accurate conveyance of information between the user and vehicle via the interface can improve vehicle performance).
The motivation for modification would have been to improve control performance, fuel efficiency of the vehicle (Maleki, [0291]), energy efficiency and safety of the vehicle (Maleki, [0295]), and overall vehicle performance (Maleki, [0353]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-21 have been 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON B EMMETT whose telephone number is (303)297-4231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00 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, Tommy Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/MADISON B EMMETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights