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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The language “coupling a first partial drive shaft…that can be operated selectively in generator or motor mode to a second partial drive train” appears to be missing punctuation to clarify that the “to” is referring to the “first partial drive shaft” and not the “first electric machine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “regulating a speed adjustment…” but then recites “at the same time a change in a torque of the internal combustion engine being carried out in the… before the speed adjustment”. It is unclear how the “change in a torque of the internal combustion engine” happens at the same time and before “a speed adjustment”. Furthermore, it is unclear if the “change in torque” is a result of the speed change or is a separate control.
Additionally the independent claims have similar issues where it is unclear when the actions are performed and if they are conditions to that cause control, are results of the control, ancillary conditions, or something else.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 9 is directed to a computer program, i.e. “software per se”. “Software per se”, when claimed without any structural limitations, does not have a physical or tangible form. Therefore, it does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and is ineligible under 35 USC 101. see MPEP 2106.03.
If support is found within the specification, Applicant is advised to amend the claim(s) to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, performs: the method according to claim 1”, or equivalent language. see MPEP 2106.03 (I). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium would comprise an article of manufacture and thus fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Dependent claim 10 is also directed toward “software per se” and, therefore, do not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 USC §101 as being directed toward ineligible subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0164864 (Palejiya et al.) in view of US 2020/0377075 (Meyer et al.).
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 10
Palejiya teaches: A hybrid vehicle drive train (#200)with a control device containing the computer program product designed to effect a method for coupling a first partial drive train (see at least Fig 2; #10, #215, and 235; and ¶0030-32) of a hybrid vehicle (#225) having a mechanical connection (see Fig 2), an internal combustion engine (#10) and a first electric machine (#215) that can be operated selectively in generator or motor mode (see at least Fig 2; #215; and ¶0030) to a second partial drive train (see at least Fig 2; #208, #240, #241, and #260; and ¶0030-34) of the hybrid vehicle (#255) having a second shaft (#241) and an electric drive machine (#240), comprising:
regulating a speed adjustment of the mechanical connection being carried out by acting on the speed of the first electric machine (see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; and ¶0052-54 and ¶0074-78; Discussing changing the speed ISG #215), at the same time a change in the torque of the internal combustion engine (see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; and ¶0052-54 and ¶0074-78; Discussing changing the speed ISG #215; Discussing changing torque of the engine #10) being carried out in the same direction in order to achieve the same performance level of the first shaft before the speed adjustment (see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; Abstract and ¶0052-54, ¶0074-78, and ¶0100; Discussing maintaining power while closing the driveline clutch. The Examiner notes that as written this language is very broad because no speed or torque direction is indicated and therefore any speed or torque acting on the same element of the transmission would be in the “same direction”.).
Palejika does not specifically teach:
that the first partial drivetrain has a first shaft.
However it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use a shaft as a mechanical connection, because doing so would allow force to be transferred between components of the vehicle. Specifically Meyer teaches:
a first partial drivetrain (see at least Fig 1; #12-15; and ¶0027-28) of a hybrid vehicle (#10) having a first shaft (see at least Fig 1; #15; and ¶0027-29).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hybrid method of controlling an engine and a motor in a vehicle disclosed in Palejiya with the method of controlling an engine and a motor in a vehicle using a shaft taught in Meyer with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to transfer mechanical/rotational energy (see Meyer ¶0027-29).
With respect to claim 2
Palejoka teaches:
wherein in one step a targeted change in the opposite direction of the torque of the first electric machine is forced (see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; Abstract and ¶0052-54, ¶0074-78, and ¶0100).
With respect to claim 3
Palejoka teaches:
wherein in an additional step the torque of the internal combustion engine is increased or decreased to a level intended for later use (see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; Abstract and ¶0052-54, ¶0074-78, ¶0091, and ¶0100).
With respect to claim 4
Palejoke teaches:
wherein an upper threshold value and a lower threshold value for a differential speed between the first electric machine and the electric drive machine are defined (see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; Abstract and ¶0044, ¶0052-56, ¶0074-78, ¶0082, ¶0092, and ¶0100),
wherein if the lower threshold value is undershot, a defined partial increment is awaited until a clutch between the first shaft and the second shaft is engaged(see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; Abstract and ¶0044, ¶0052-56, ¶0074-78, ¶0082, ¶0092, and ¶0100),
wherein if the upper threshold value is exceeded, another adjustment of the speed of the first electric machine is forced(see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; Abstract and ¶0044, ¶0052-56, ¶0074-78, ¶0082, ¶0092, and ¶0100).
With respect to claim 5
Palejoke teaches:
wherein at the same time a switching from a speed regulation of the first electric machine to a torque regulation of the first electric machine and a maintenance of the torque of the internal combustion engine and of the first electric machine are effected (see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; Abstract and ¶0052-54, ¶0074-78, and ¶0091-100).
With respect to claim 6
Palejoke does not specifically teach
wherein the torque of the first electric machine is changed towards 0 Nm and the torque of the electric drive machine is changed in the opposite direction.
However Meyer teaches:
wherein the torque of the first electric machine is changed towards 0 Nm and the torque of the electric drive machine is changed in the opposite direction (see at least Fig 1-5; #16; and ¶0050).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hybrid method of controlling an engine and a motor in a vehicle disclosed in Palejiya with the method of controlling an engine and a motor in a vehicle by decreasing the motor generator torque toward 0 as taught in Meyer with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so reduce noise-vibration-harshness problems (see Meyer ¶0050).
With respect to claim 7
Palejoke teaches:
wherein the torque of the internal combustion engine is adjusted and the torque of the electric drive machine is adjusted in the opposite direction in order to take the entire torque used for drive from the internal combustion engine (see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; Abstract and ¶0052-54, ¶0074-78, ¶0086, and ¶0100).
With respect to claim 8
Palejoke teaches:
wherein actual states of the first electric machine, the electric drive machine and the internal combustion engine are monitored and necessary torque changes are calculated by comparing with a target torque requested by a driver of the hybrid vehicle, a balancing of torques then being forced by changing a behavior of the electric drive machine (see at least Fig 2-5; #412-454; Abstract and ¶0052-54, ¶0074-78, ¶0086, ¶0095 and ¶0100).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights