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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed March 16, 2026. Claims 1, 8, 10-15, and 17-19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed March 16, 2026 with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and rendered moot by the present amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed March 16, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections 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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dourra et al. US 20200377076 A1, in view of Yun et al., US 20230203785 A1, hereinafter referred to as Dourra, and Yun, respectively.
As to claim 1, Dourra discloses a hybrid vehicle comprising:
a hybrid powertrain (Hybrid vehicle – See at least Abstract) including:
a motor-generator unit (Motor – See at least Abstract);
a battery electrically connected to the motor-generator unit (Battery – See at least ¶18);
an engine (Engine – See at least Abstract); and
a transmission engageably connected to the engine and the motor-generator unit (Transmission – See at least ¶24), and
a controller for controlling the hybrid powertrain (Power train control unit – See at least ¶19),
wherein the controller is configured to (1) detect when a triggering event has occurred, (3) determine a state of charge of the battery, and (4) determine an amount of excess torque or power available from the motor-generator unit, and wherein the controller is configured to signal the motor-generator unit to apply additional motor torque to the hybrid powertrain when (1) the triggering event has occurred, (3) a state of charge of the battery is above a threshold, and (4) excess torque or power from the motor-generator unit is available (Various factors including torque request by driver i.e., triggering event – See at least ¶29; SOC – See at least ¶29; Available torque – See at least ¶30).
Dourra fails to explicitly disclose determining whether a boost drive mode has been enabled, via one or more user inputs, and performing the above control if the boost drive mode has been enabled. However, 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 Dourra and include the feature of determining whether a boost drive mode has been enabled, via one or more user inputs, and performing the above control if the boost drive mode has been enabled, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Yun teaches it is well-known and routine in the hybrid work machine arts to control a hybrid work machine boost mode in response to an operator selection of a boost mode via an operator input device (See at least Abstract and ¶4 of Yun).
Independent claims 8, and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences due to the claims being directed to different statutory classes of invention.
As to claims 4, 11, and 17, Dourra discloses the hybrid/heavy vehicle further includes an accelerator pedal, and wherein the triggering event is a depression of the accelerator pedal (Pedal depression – See at least ¶47).
Dourra fails to explicitly disclose accelerator pedal depression beyond a specified percentage. However, 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 Dourra and include the feature of accelerator pedal depression beyond a specified percentage, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize Dourra’s system necessarily requires a pedal depression threshold in order to serve as the requisite criterion for performing its disclosed control.
As to claims 6, 13, and 19, Dourra discloses the triggering event occurs when the hybrid/heavy vehicle is in motion (Vehicle is in motion because of discussion of gear selection – See at least ¶24).
Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dourra et al. US 20200377076 A1, in view of Yun et al., US 20230203785 A1, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Kim, US 20190152469 A1, hereinafter referred to as Dourra, Yun, and Kim, respectively.
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Dourra and Yun fails to explicitly disclose the triggering event is a slowing of wheel speed while the engine is within a specified operating range. However, 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 Dourra and Yun and include the feature of the triggering event is a slowing of wheel speed while the engine is within a specified operating range, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kim teaches it is well-known and routine in the hybrid vehicle arts to control a hybrid vehicle assist (or boost) mode in response to vehicle speed and engine speed meeting prescribed thresholds (See at least ¶56 and Fig. 3 of Kim).
As to claims 7, 14, and 20, the combination of Dourra and Yun fails to explicitly disclose the triggering event is the hybrid vehicle reaching a specified speed, and additional torque or power from the motor-generator unit is applied upon an occurrence of a second triggering event, the second triggering event being a slowing of wheel speed while the engine is within a specified operating range or a depression of an accelerator pedal beyond a specified percentage. However, 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 Dourra and Yun and include the feature of the triggering event is the hybrid vehicle reaching a specified speed, and additional torque or power from the motor-generator unit is applied upon an occurrence of a second triggering event, the second triggering event being a slowing of wheel speed while the engine is within a specified operating range or a depression of an accelerator pedal beyond a specified percentage, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kim teaches it is well-known and routine in the hybrid vehicle arts to control a hybrid vehicle assist (or boost) mode in response to vehicle speed, specifically, and engine speed meeting prescribed thresholds (See at least ¶56 and Fig. 3 of Kim).
Claims 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dourra et al. US 20200377076 A1, in view of Yun et al., US 20230203785 A1, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Nishi, US 20140148984 A1, hereinafter referred to as Dourra, Yun, and Nishi, respectively.
As to claims 3, and 10, the combination of Dourra and Yun fails to explicitly disclose the triggering event is a slowing of a speed of the engine below a threshold speed of the engine. However, 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 Dourra and Yun and include the feature of the triggering event is a slowing of a speed of the engine below a threshold speed of the engine, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nishi teaches it is well-known and routine in the hybrid vehicle arts to control a hybrid vehicle assist (or boost) mode in response to decreases in engine speed (See at least ¶16 of Nishi).
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dourra et al. US 20200377076 A1, in view of Yun et al., US 20230203785 A1, as applied to claims 4, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Cooke, US 20180370541 A1, hereinafter referred to as Dourra, Yun, and Cooke, respectively.
As to claims 5, 12, and 18, the combination of Dourra and Yun fails to explicitly disclose the triggering event occurs when the hybrid/heavy vehicle is stopped. However, 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 Dourra and Yun and include the feature of the triggering event occurs when the hybrid vehicle is stopped, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cooke teaches it is well-known and routine in vehicle control arts to only allow a vehicle mode switch when the vehicle is stationary (See at least ¶109 of Cooke), which would have the added benefit of avoiding abrupt changes in a vehicle’s operation thereby avoiding potentially unsafe circumstances.
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 Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 Jabr can be reached at (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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights