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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-18 in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the restriction requirement is not proper, because according to the applicant that there is no serious burden on the examiner if the restriction were not required.
This is not found persuasive because the following:
MPEP 808 cites the reasons for insisting upon a restriction requirement. The examiner not only showed separate classification but also showed the reasoning why said groups were restrictable (i.e, process vs. system). Two groups of the claims are shown as the distinct inventions because they are related but they are not connected in at least one of design, operation, or effect. The method of group I optimizes hybrid vehicle regenerative braking by intelligently managing the engine clutch to maximize energy recovery. The system of II is a regenerative braking system which is designed to maximize energy recovery by intelligently switching between using one motor or two motors based on braking demand. The system of group II as claimed can be used to practice another process, for example, a process of managing control process based on light braking demand (e.g., using the second motor acts as a generator that converts the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy,) and high braking demand (e.g., using the first motor as a generator and leverages the engine’s internal friction to provide additional braking force.)
The examiner has realized a burden exists when more than one invention is claimed and requires numerous class/subclass searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
An action on claims 11-18 follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Huh (US 2023/0150505 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application.
Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 11, Huh discloses a system and method of controlling regenerative braking of a hybrid vehicle. The system with a controller (205) that manages the second motor’s regenerative braking based on speed and demand relative to a reference value as shown below:
When the speed of the hybrid vehicle is less than a vehicle speed reference value, the controller (205) manages the second motor (225) to meet the full demand (see Fig. 2; paragraphs 0010, and 0034).
When the speed of the hybrid vehicle is above the vehicle speed reference value, and the second motor’s maximum amount of regenerative braking is less than demanded braking of the hybrid vehicle, the controller (205) manages regenerative braking (see paragraph 0011).
When the maximum amount of regenerative braking of the second motor (225) is less than that of demanded braking of the hybrid vehicle, the engine clutch is engaged (see at least paragraphs 0012, and 0047); after the engine clutch is engaged, the controller calculates the amount of regenerative braking of the first motor (215), and the maximum amount of regenerative braking of the second motor (225).
Therefore, Huh suggests that the controller engages the engine clutch to utilize the first motor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Huh’s regenerative braking system to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of optimizing energy recover by using a second motor for braking at low speeds and engaging the first motor to maximize energy harvesting.
Regarding claim 12, Huh discloses and suggests a controller that is configured to determine first and second regenerative braking capacities based on the specified factors (see paragraph 0012, and 0047). First, the controller evaluates the maximum capacity of the second motor (second motor only), and if insufficient, calculates a combined capacity (first and second motors) considering the engine clutch state, engine friction, and battery limits to manage braking.
Allowable Subject Matter
The U.S. patent application publication No. US 2023/0150505 A1 by Huh is the most relevant prior art of record. As discussed herein above, Hud discloses and suggests the limitations as recited in claim 11. However, Huh is not quite disclosing or even suggesting the features as recited in claims 13-15, and 18.
For at least the reason set forth herein above, claims 13-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US 2009/0118887 A1 by Minarcin which discloses a system and method of controlling regenerative braking and friction braking. This system and method are provided for optimizing energy recovery by dynamically balancing regenerative braking and friction braking based on a non-linear, vehicle-operating-point-dependent ratio; US 2023/0264693 A1 by Lugo-Castillo et al. which discloses a control system for controlling a powertrain of an electric or hybrid electric vehicle. The system improves regenerative braking consistency in electric/hybrid vehicles by using a target deceleration to determine traction motor torque, rather than relying solely on brake pedal position; US 2003/0184147 A1 by Perach which discloses a vehicle system and method for simulating engine coastdown braking for an electric powered vehicle; EP-2055589-A2 by Logan which discloses a system and method for controlling regenerative braking in a vehicle; EP-2055588-A2 by Logan which also discloses a system and method for controlling regenerative braking and friction braking.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights