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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-017460, filed on 02/07/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 filed on 11/04/2024 are presently examined.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisashi et al. (JP 2019099059 A) in view of Mitsuaki (JP 2009184382 A), hereinafter referred to as Hisashi and Mitsuaki, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Hisashi discloses A vehicle control device to be used for a vehicle including at least one power source that outputs power to a drive shaft connected to an axle, the vehicle control device being configured to:
control, at an accelerator off time, the power source such that torque output to the drive shaft gradually reduces over a target lowering time toward required torque for the accelerator off time ([0008] “time for changing the magnitude of the torque output by the driving force source is the reciprocal of the reference frequency”); and
Hisashi discloses set the target lowering time to n times an inverse of a resonance frequency of a drive system including the power source, wherein the n is an integer having a value of 1 or more([0008] “time for changing the magnitude of the torque output by the driving force source is the reciprocal of the reference frequency”).
Hisashi fails to explicitly disclose control the power source such that the vehicle travels in one travel mode selected from a plurality of modes, and the n is an integer having a value of 1 or more, and is changed according to the travel mode.
However, Mitsuaki teaches control the power source such that the vehicle travels in one travel mode selected from a plurality of modes ([0004] “control the output state of driving power for each driving mode in a hybrid vehicle that allows selection of a plurality of driving modes.”), the target lowering time … is shorter in performance mode and longer in eco-friendly mode, and is changed according to the travel mode ([0007] “when … the second driving mode is selected as the execution driving mode, the target driving force is set to change slowly based on the required driving force and the second slow-change constraint, which tends to cause the target driving force to change more sharply than the first slow-change constraint.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hisashi with Mitsuaki’s teaching of a hybrid vehicle which travels in multiple selected driving modes, whose change in torque over time changes based on the selected mode, wherein when the vehicle is in power mode, the change in torque over time is faster than in normal mode. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use multiple travel modes in order to provide greater responsiveness to the driver when in power mode, and vibration mitigation in normal mode (Mitsuaki [0007] “As a result, when the first driving mode for normal driving is selected, the output responsiveness of the driving power is slightly reduced compared to when the second driving mode is selected, but by slowly changing the driving power based on the first slow-change constraint, it is possible to effectively suppress vibrations and shocks. Furthermore, when the second driving mode, which prioritizes the output responsiveness of the driving power, is selected, the second slow-change constraint is used, which tends to cause the target driving force to change more sharply than the first slow-change constraint, so vibrations and shocks increase slightly compared to when the first driving mode for normal driving is selected”).
Regarding claim 2, Hisashi fails to explicitly disclose The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein: the modes include a first mode and a second mode that emphasizes an output responsiveness of travel torque compared to the first mode; and
the n is made smaller when the travel mode is the second mode than when the travel mode is the first mode.
However, Mitsuaki teaches the modes include a first mode and a second mode that emphasizes an output responsiveness of travel torque compared to the first mode; and the target lowering time is made smaller when the travel mode is the second mode than when the travel mode is the first mode ([0007] “when … the second driving mode is selected as the execution driving mode, the target driving force is set to change slowly based on the required driving force and the second slow-change constraint, which tends to cause the target driving force to change more sharply than the first slow-change constraint.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hisashi with Mitsuaki’s teaching of a shorter target torque lowering time in power mode and a longer one in normal mode. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to have a shorter target lowering time in performance mode in order to increase responsiveness to the driver Mitsuaki [0007] “it is possible to obtain driving power with good responsiveness, and it is possible to satisfactorily meet the high output demands of the driver.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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. The prior art of record do not disclose or reasonably suggest the following:
Claim 3, The vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the travel mode is the second mode, the n is made larger when a predetermined condition for prohibiting an immediate reduction in torque to be output to the drive shaft is met than when the predetermined condition is not met.
Claim 4, The vehicle control device according to claim 3, wherein: the vehicle includes a motor as the power source and a battery that exchanges electric power with the motor; and
the predetermined condition includes a condition that an absolute value of an input limit as allowable maximum power allowed to be input to the battery is smaller than a predetermined threshold value.
Claim 5, The vehicle control device according to claim 3, wherein: the vehicle includes an engine as the power source in which an exhaust control device including an exhaust control catalyst that controls exhaust gas is attached to an exhaust system; and
the predetermined condition includes a condition that ignition retardation to retard an ignition timing of the engine is prohibited to suppress a temperature rise of the exhaust control catalyst.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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 on 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668