DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 is the first office action on the merits of Application No. 18/845,816 filed on 09/10/2024 and 03/27/2025. Pending claims 1-6, filed on 03/27/2025, have been examined. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (US 20150066265 A1 cited in the IDS filed 08/12/2025)(hereinafter “Martin”)
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses a control device (46, figs. 1-7, para 20) for a vehicle that can travel in a parallel mode using an engine drive torque by an engine (24, fig. 1) and a motor assist torque by a motor (38, fig. 1), the control device comprising:
a controller (46, fig. 1) configured to cause the vehicle to travel (e.g. t1 to t4, fig. 7) using the engine drive torque (e.g. plot 704 in fig. 7) and the motor assist torque (e.g. plot 706, fig. 7) when a required drive torque (e.g. 702, fig. 7) exceeds a first threshold (e.g. MTBFE, paras 62-65, fig. 7),
wherein the first threshold (MTBFE) is set to a value at which a fuel consumption rate of an output by the engine (24) becomes worse than a fuel consumption rate of an output by the motor, (see para 63” In the example, due to the torque demand being a value that can be provided by the engine while operating within the constrained limit, no additional motor torque allocation is required (plot 706). Thus, driver demand is met while maintaining good fuel economy.”), and is set to a value lower than a maximum torque (e.g. tqe_maxallow, fig. 7, see para 66) that can be output by the engine (24).
(Please note: MTBFE is the torque at which the engine achieves its maximum possible fuel efficiency. Any reduction or increase in engine torque from this MTBFE would therefore evidently lead to a deterioration in the vehicle’s overall efficiency. See para 66 and t3-t4 of fig. 7)
Regarding claim 2, Martin discloses the control device for the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to cause the vehicle to travel by keeping the engine drive torque constant (e.g. 704 from t1-t3, fig. 7) and adjusting the motor assist torque (e.g. 706, from t1-t3) when the required drive torque (702) is between the first threshold (MTBFE) and a second threshold (not shown) that is greater than the first threshold, and the second threshold corresponds to a sum of the engine drive torque kept constant (e.g. engine torque from t1 to t3 is constant as shown in fig. 7) and a maximum torque (e.g. tqe_maxmotor) that can be output by the motor.
Regarding claim 3, Martin discloses the control device for the vehicle according to claim 2, wherein when the required drive torque (702, fig. 7) exceeds the second threshold, the controller is configured to cause the vehicle to travel by further increasing an output from the engine drive torque (e.g. t3-t4) that is kept constant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20200248806 A1) in view of OGUMA et al. (US 20180072307 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Martin discloses the control device for the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein when the required drive torque (e.g. plot 702, fig. 7) is smaller than a third threshold (e.g. 0-t1, plot 704, fig. 7) that is smaller than the first threshold (MTBFE), the controller is configured to cause the engine drive torque to be constant while performing traveling of the vehicle and is configured not to use the motor assist torque. (See para 63, “In the example, due to the torque demand being a value that can be provided by the engine while operating within the constrained limit, no additional motor torque allocation is required (plot 706). Thus, driver demand is met while maintaining good fuel economy.”)
Martin fails to disclose the engine drive torque to be constant while charging of a battery (36, para 18, fig. 1).
OGUMA teaches a similar kind of control device (20, figs. 1-2, para 25) for a vehicle that can travel in parallel mode using an engine drive torque by an engine (2,fig. 1) and a motor assist torque by a motor (e.g. 4, 6, fig. 1), wherein the controller is configured to cause the engine drive torque to be constant while charging of a battery (11)(see paras 20, 38, 48 and required engine torque (Teh or Ten) in fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin by charging a battery while the engine drive torque to be constant as taught by OGUMA in order to charge the battery.
Regarding claim 5, Martin/ OGUMA discloses the control device for the vehicle as modified according to claim 4, OGUMA further comprising: an acquisition portion (e.g. 10, para 22, fig. 1) configured to acquire a remaining charge of the battery (11), wherein the controller is configured to set the third threshold higher when the remaining charge of the battery is lower than a predetermined threshold (e.g. Sab or Sbd, fig. 2), than that when the remaining charge (SOC) of the battery is higher than the predetermined threshold. (see para 49)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 is objected to as been dependent upon the rejected claim 4, respectively but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, set forth in this office action.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
KINOSHITA (US 20180229715 A1) teaches a vehicle control apparatus causes a vehicle to selectively perform an engine mode and an assist mode that allow for transfer of, respectively, drive force of an engine and both drive forces of the engine and an electric motor to a wheel. The vehicle control apparatus includes: a consumption amount calculator that calculates first and second fuel consumption amounts, respectively, when performing the engine and assist modes; a reduction amount calculator that calculates a possible fuel reduction amount by subtracting the second fuel consumption amount from the first fuel consumption amount; a mode controller that causes the assist and engine modes to be performed, respectively, when the fuel reduction amount exceeds and is equal to or below a threshold; and a threshold setter that sets the threshold to first and second values, respectively, when a state of charge of an electricity storage device is in first and second charging levels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHANA PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Jacob S. Scott can be reached on 5712703415. 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.
/F.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/FARHANA PERVIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655