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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for this application, since the independent claims recite “control the vehicle, based on at least one of an electric vehicle (EV) mode determined according to the reference power or a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) mode determined according to the reference power”, which recite a practical application, since the vehicle is positively controlled according to the reference power that is determined for driving the engine. A human mind cannot control an HEV or EV mode. Furthermore, Fig. 1 and Para. 0048-0050 of the specifications (filed 11/18/2024) further recite that the vehicle includes an engine 145, a motor 140, a transmission, a battery, a hybrid starter and generator for starting the engine, such that the control of the vehicle includes controlling an engine of the vehicle. Therefore, the claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
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, 3, 6-7, 11, 13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. US20160332616A1 (henceforth Zhao).
Regarding claim 1,
Zhao discloses:
A vehicle control apparatus, comprising: an engine (Fig. 1, Engine 18); a battery (Fig. 1. Battery 44 and battery 30), a processor (Para. 0042, “controller 302 may process” and a memory (Para. 0025, “memory”)
wherein the processor is configured to: predict a change in speed of a vehicle according to a route of the vehicle; divide the route into a plurality of sections, using the change in speed; (See at least Para. 0040, “As an example, a predicted vehicle speed profile over the intended route to the destination may be known. The predicted speed profile may be derived from the route information. The route may be segmented according to increasing or decreasing vehicle speed. For example, a continuous portion of the profile in which the vehicle speed increases may be considered to be a segment”. The route is divided into a plurality of sections using the predicted change in speed.)
obtain power information of the vehicle, the power information to vary based on the change in speed, in each of the plurality of sections; determine reference power for maintaining driving of the engine while driving the vehicle in each of the plurality of sections, using the power information corresponding to each of the plurality of sections; (See at least Para. 0038, “The wheel power demand may be a predicted amount of power at the wheels for the vehicle to travel at the specified speed and road grade” and Para. 0043, “the average vehicle acceleration may be compared to thresholds to determine a vehicle acceleration classification for each segment. In cases in which wheel power demand is used, the wheel power demand profile may be averaged for each segment to determine an average wheel power demand for each segment. For example, the vehicle acceleration classification for the segment may be accelerating when the average vehicle acceleration is greater than a predetermined acceleration threshold. The vehicle acceleration classification for the segment may be decelerating when the average vehicle acceleration is less than a predetermined deceleration threshold”, wherein reference power information (i.e. average wheel power demand) is obtained for maintaining driving of the engine while driving the vehicle in each section.)
and control the vehicle, based on at least one of an electric vehicle (EV) mode determined according to the reference power or a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) mode determined according to the reference power, or any combination thereof.
(See at least Para. 0052, “ consider that the first segment is uphill at a relatively constant speed (e.g., Class 2). Also, consider the second segment being a flat road with vehicle deceleration (e.g., Class 6). In this scenario, it appears that in the second segment that the vehicle decelerates so that the battery may be charged via regenerative braking knowing about the potential increase in battery state of charge due to regenerative braking in advance, the system may compensate in the present segment by using more battery power in the present segment.” The vehicle is controlled based at least one of an electric vehicle mode (i.e. a regenerative braking mode in the second section of the route).)
Regarding claim 3,
Zhao discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: check whether the speed of the vehicle, the speed to vary with the change in speed according to the route, is included within a specified speed range
(See at least Para. 0061, wherein the controller determines that the vehicle trajectory does not match the intended route by checking the speed of the vehicle and comparing it to associated segment profiles. The speed of the vehicle is checked to see if it is included within a specified speed range of the vehicle segment.)
Regarding claim 6,
Zhao discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the power information, using at least one of speed data associated with the route and obtained before driving the vehicle or grade data associated with the route and obtained before driving the vehicle, or any combination thereof. (See at least Para. 0036-0037, wherein the vehicle receives route data that includes road grade information, which is used to determine an expected drive power demand for the route section. Therefore, the processor obtains power information using grade data that is associated with the route which is obtained before driving of the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 7,
Zhao discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: determine a state of charge (SOC) of the battery in a last section among the plurality of sections; and determine the reference power, using the SOC.
(See at least Para. 0057, “The target state of charge is the state of charge that is planned at the end of the present route segment. At the end of each segment, the computations may be performed again for the next segment”. The state of charge is determined in a last section among the plurality of sections. Further see Para. 0006, wherein the engine is controlled based on the target state of charge, and therefore a reference power for the engine is determined using the SOC.)
Regarding claim 11,
Zhao discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 13,
Zhao discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 16,
Zhao discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 17,
Zhao discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Yoon et al. US20170096134A1 (henceforth Yoon) and Jun-nian et al. CN104760594A (Henceforth Jun-nian).
Regarding claim 2,
Zhao discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Zhao does not specifically state “wherein the processor is configured to: identify an average speed of the vehicle according to the change in speed, in each of the plurality of sections; and obtain the power information with dispersion based on the average speed and an average value obtained using wheel torque of the vehicle.” However, Yoon teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: identify an average speed of the vehicle according to the change in speed, in each of the plurality of sections; (See at least Para. 0013, “determining a first threshold line and a second threshold line based on the second virtual SOC trend line, the average effective gradient for each section, and the average effective vehicle speed for each section; and operating the engine and the motor using the expected driving mode of the hybrid electric vehicle.” An average speed is identified in each of the plurality of sections.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Yoon to include “wherein the processor is configured to: identify an average speed of the vehicle according to the change in speed, in each of the plurality of sections; and obtain the power information with dispersion based on the average speed and an average value obtained using wheel torque of the vehicle” in order to “optimize driving energy of the hybrid electric vehicle in an entire route” (Para. 0003, Yoon), which would further create a more robust hybrid vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Yoon The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Zhao does not specifically state obtain the power information with dispersion based on the average speed and an average value obtained using wheel torque of the vehicle.
However, Jun-nian teaches:
and obtain the power information with dispersion based on the average speed and an average value obtained using wheel torque of the vehicle.
(See claim 6, “The instantaneous energy consumption according to claim 5, the wheel torque distribution method, wherein, in step c), the left front wheel torque range for dispersion to obtain multiple levels of the left front wheel torque. the torque range of the right front wheel dispersing to get some grades of right front wheel torque, respectively calculating instantaneous total power consumption Ecom at different stage of left front wheel torque and different levels of right front wheel torque condition”. Power information is obtained with dispersion.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Jun-nian to include “obtain the power information with dispersion based on the average speed and an average value obtained using wheel torque of the vehicle” in order to “achieve the best energy-saving effect” (See the abstract, Jun-nian), which would create a more robust hybrid vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Jun-nian. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12,
Zhao, Yoon, and Jun-nian discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Flardh et al. US20200298866A1 (henceforth Flardh).
Regarding claim 4,
Zhao discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 3 above.
Zhao does not specifically state wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the power information, using a setting value, if the speed is included outside the specified speed range during a specified time.
However, Flardh teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the power information, using a setting value, if the speed is included outside the specified speed range during a specified time. (See at least Para. 0023, “the method comprises monitoring A22 the at least one control profile determined with the rule-based method for an indication of at least one predetermined velocity pattern, and upon detecting such an indication, selecting the control profile with the detected predetermined velocity pattern as the reference control profile“ and Para. 0025, “the predetermined velocity pattern corresponds to a situation where, because of a power shortfall in an uphill before a crest, the velocity of the vehicle goes below a preset lower velocity limit before a downhill after the crest”. Power information is obtained using a setting value if the speed is included outside the speed range.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Flardh to include “wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the power information, using a setting value, if the speed is included outside the specified speed range during a specified time” in order for “allowing a truck to pick up speed on a downhill rather than braking to control speed, which conserves momentum of the truck” (Para. 0024, Flardh), and “ it may be desired to use the control profile determined using a rule-based method” (Para. 0023, Flardh). This would create a more robust system for conserving the momentum of a vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Flardh. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14,
Zhao and Flardh discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Frank et al. US20140229043A1 (henceforth Frank).
Regarding claim 5
Zhao discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 3 as recited above.
Zhao does not specifically state wherein the processor is configured to: determine a variance value, using at least one of outside weather, the speed, or grade information associated with the route, or any combination thereof, if the speed is included within the specified speed range during a specified time; and obtain the power information, using the variance value.
However, Frank teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: determine a variance value, using at least one of outside weather, the speed, or grade information associated with the route, or any combination thereof, if the speed is included within the specified speed range during a specified time; and obtain the power information, using the variance value. (See at least Para. 0121, “For example, if the average speed is below a certain speed (e.g., 30 kph) and the speed variance is also small, then the SOC may be set to this minimum allowed by battery durability and projected vehicle instant power and energy considerations” and “But if the speed variance is high indicating serious stop and go traffic then the LOW SOC boundary should be set to higher value to allow the use of higher power for a longer period of time”. A variance value is determined using the speed of the vehicle if the speed is included within a specified speed range (i.e. below 30kph is a speed range of 0-30kph), such that power information is obtained using this information.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Frank to include “determine a variance value, using at least one of outside weather, the speed, or grade information associated with the route, or any combination thereof, if the speed is included within the specified speed range during a specified time; and obtain the power information, using the variance value” in order to set a power usage based on the speed variance which would “allow the use of higher power for a longer period of time. This may occur in heavy traffic highway driving for example” (Para. 0121, Frank). This would create a more robust vehicle power management system when the variance is high such as in a heavy traffic highway. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Frank. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 15,
Zhao and Frank discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Yamamoto US20140371963A1.
Regarding claim 8,
Zhao discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Zhao further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: obtain information for minimizing fuel corresponding to at least one section in which the vehicle is located among the plurality of sections and consumed while the vehicle is traveling along the route, using the reference power; and determine the at least one of the EV mode or the HEV mode, or the any combination thereof in the at least one section, using the information. (See at least Para. 0027, “Quantities such a battery power capability and battery state of charge may be useful for controlling the operation of the battery pack as well as any electrical loads receiving power from the battery pack. Battery power capability is a measure of the maximum amount of power the battery can provide or the maximum amount of power that the battery can receive. Knowing the battery power capability allows the electrical loads to be managed such that the power requested is within limits that the battery can handle” and Para. 0056, “the controller may command charging and discharging of the traction battery 24 during the present route segment according to the target state of charge. To charge the traction battery 24, the electric machine 14 may be operated as a generator powered by the engine 18 or the electric machine 18 may be operated as a generator (e.g., regenerative braking) to decelerate the vehicle 12.” A charging or discharging mode of the battery (i.e. regenerative braking) during the present route segment according to the target state of charge (i.e. wherein the target state of charge is referenced for the reference power that is requested). Further see Para. 0029-0030, wherein this is done to minimize fuel consumption.)
Zhao does not specifically state wherein the information that is obtained is ratio information.
However, Yamamoto Teaches:
the obtained information is ratio information (See at least Para. 0010, where the obtained information includes a proportion of a time of the engine operation to the total time.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto to include the bolded limitation as recited above in order to “facilitate the selection of the EV mode” (Para. 0006, Yamamoto), which would create a more robust EV system and specifically in a vehicle power management system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Yamamoto. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10,
Zhao does not specifically state wherein the ratio information indicates a ratio between a transit time when the vehicle passes through the at least one section and an HEV time when the vehicle is controlled based on the HEV mode in the at least one section.
However, Yamamoto teaches:
wherein the ratio information indicates a ratio between a transit time when the vehicle passes through the at least one section and an HEV time when the vehicle is controlled based on the HEV mode in the at least one section.(See at least Para. 0010, where the obtained information includes a proportion of a time of the engine operation to the total time (i.e. a ratio between a total transit time to an HEV time).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto to include the bolded limitation as recited above in order to “facilitate the selection of the EV mode” (Para. 0006, Yamamoto) in a hybrid system (Para. 0010, Yamamoto), which would create a more robust HEV system and specifically in a vehicle power management system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Yamamoto. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 18,
Zhao and Yamamoto discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 20,
Zhao and Yamamoto discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 10 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 is dependent to claim 8, wherein claim 9 recites “obtain the ratio information, in a first layer including a dispersion model for obtaining the power information; and determine the at least one of the EV mode or the HEV mode, or the any combination thereof in the at least one section, using the ratio information, in a second layer including at least one of an acceleration prediction model for controlling the vehicle, a vehicle required power model for controlling the vehicle, or a vehicle control model for controlling the vehicle, or any combination thereof”. The primary reference Zhao US20160332616A1 discloses the limitations of claim 8 such as “obtain information for minimizing fuel corresponding to at least one section in which the vehicle is located among the plurality of sections and consumed while the vehicle is traveling along the route, using the reference power; and determine the at least one of the EV mode or the HEV mode, or the any combination thereof in the at least one section, using the information”, but does not specifically state obtaining ratio information. The ratio information is present in the secondary reference Yamamoto US20140371963A1, but claim 9 requires more regarding the ratio information. Claim 9 requires that the ratio information is obtained in a first layer including a dispersion model for obtaining the power information and furthermore, the EV or HEV mode is determined using the ratio information in a second layer that also includes at least one of an acceleration prediction model for controlling the vehicle, a vehicle required power model for controlling the vehicle, or a vehicle control model for controlling the vehicle. These limitations, and in combination with the other elements in the claim are not anticipated nor made obvious by the prior art on record. The same rational applies to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Askerdal US20230228581A1 discloses A processing unit segments the route into a plurality of sections. It is, for each section, obtains a set of route section characteristic values that will impact the energy consumption of the vehicle whilst driving within the section. (See Fig. 3 and Abstract)
Boucharel US20220258718A1 discloses a computer for managing the drive train of a hybrid vehicle including an internal combustion engine, an electric machine and a battery. The drive train being capable of operating in a plurality of charging or discharging modes of the battery, the computer determines a set of probabilities of activation of the mode, determines the value of the speed of the electric motor for each mode, determines a set of electrical powers of the electric machine, calculates an energy consumption reduction indicator. (See abstract)
Wray et al. US20220205796A1 discloses route planning for a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) includes obtaining a route between an origin and a destination, where the route is optimized for at least one of a noise level or energy consumption of an engine of the HEV that is used to charge a battery of the HEV, and where the route comprises respective engine activation actions for at least some segments of the route; and controlling the HEV to follow the segments of the route and to activate the engine according to the respective engine activation actions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669