DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 13, 2024. Claims 1-18 are pending and examined below.
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. KR 10-2024-0070305, filed on May 29, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) file on November 13, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: specification paragraph [0087] should end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-9 and 16-18 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.
Claims 7 and 16 recite “integrating a vehicle output amount”. It not clear what “output amount” refers to and how the method or system to implement the integration.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
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 (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 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 1-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimakami, US 2017/0066432 A1.
As to claim 1, Shimakami teaches a method for controlling a hybrid electric vehicle, the method comprising (abstract):
acquiring a state of charge (SOC) of a battery in response to downhill driving of the hybrid electric vehicle starting (¶ 31, 40, 47 and Fig. 1; i.e. downhill detection and SOC monitoring and use in control decision);
determining driving energy of the hybrid electric vehicle (¶ 30, 33, 42);
determining, based on the SOC of the battery and the driving energy, whether a condition for entering an engine speed control mode is met (¶ 39-47, 50, 53 and Fig. 2; e.g. mode switching based on SOC, electric power and vehicle speed); and
discharging, when the condition for entering the engine speed control mode is met, the battery by controlling a speed of an engine by using a first motor permanently connected to the engine while the engine is disconnected from wheels (¶ 40-43 and Figs. 1-2; e.g. ECU 24 operation is stopped and the operation is switched to motor MG1) ;.
As to claim 2, Shimakami teaches wherein the condition for entering the engine speed control mode comprises at least one of: whether the engine is disconnected from the wheels (¶ 43 and Figs. 1-2; e.g. ECU 24 is cut-off for operation); whether the SOC of the battery is equal to or greater than a first threshold percentage (¶ 39-40); whether the hybrid electric vehicle has driven on a downhill slope for a certain period of time or longer (¶ 31, 33); whether the driving energy of the hybrid electric vehicle has fallen below a predetermined value based on the SOC of the battery at a start of downhill driving (¶ 39-40 and Fig. 2); or a combination thereof.
As to claim 3, Shimakami teaches discontinuing the engine speed control mode when a condition for terminating the engine speed control mode is met, wherein the engine speed control mode uses the first motor (¶ 39-43 and Figs. 1-2; e.g. discontinue the engine speed control by fuel and switch to motor MG1).
As to claim 4, wherein the condition for terminating the engine speed control mode comprises whether a current vehicle speed is equal to or lower than a threshold speed; whether the engine is disconnected from the wheels (¶ 34, 38-43 and Fig. 2).
As to claim 6, Shimakami teaches wherein in discharging the battery, the battery is discharged by controlling, through the first motor, the speed of the engine to converge to a speed of the second motor (¶ 30-31 and Fig. 1).
Claims 10-13 are rejected based on the rationale used for claims 1-4 above.
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 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakami, US 2017/0066432 A1 in view of Suzuki et al., US 2019/0276000 A1.
As to claims 5 and 14, Shimakami teaches the first motor is selectively connected to a second motor, and an engine shaft of the engine and a motor shaft of the first motor are directly connected to each other so as to rotate together at all times (¶ 6 and Fig. 1). Shimakami does not explicitly disclose an engine clutch for selectively connecting the first motor to a second motor. However, Suzuki teaches a hybrid vehicle including an engine clutch selectively connect a first motor and a second motor (¶ 40, 46, 53, 57 and Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Suzuki’s engine clutch into the hybrid powertrain vehicle of Shimakami in order to provide selective coupling between the first motor and the second motor, as doing so would have predictably improved control of torque distribution and enhanced the flexibility of hybrid vehicle operation.
As to claims 6 and 15, Shimakami in view of Suzuki further teaches wherein in discharging the battery, the battery is discharged by controlling, through the first motor, the speed of the engine to converge to a speed of the second motor (Shimakami: ¶ 30-31 and Fig. 1).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bolthouse et al. (US 11,267,453 B2) discloses hybrid vehicle energy management torque control during transitions between transient and steady-state operation.
Oguma et al. (US 2018/0072307 A1) discloses a hybrid vehicle capable of causing the vehicle to travel in parallel mode in which front wheels of the vehicle are driven by an engine and a front motor, capable of fuel cut control to stop fuel supply to the engine during deceleration of the vehicle, and capable of regenerative braking using the front motor.
Arai et al. (WO 2013/098990 A1) discloses electricity consumption learning for a plug-in hybrid vehicle.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Cheung whose telephone number is (571) 272-6705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Christian Chace, can be reached on (571) 272-4190.
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).
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceedings is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-6705 (Draft Communications)
/MARY CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 May 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights