DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 7/1/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed “Applicant respectfully submits that Yamazaki does not teach or suggest a method "for increasing operational efficiency of an alternator of a vehicle," including at least "responsive to determining that the indication of the energy state of the energy storage device exceeds the threshold value and the alternator is in a charging state, transmitting, by the one or more processors, a control signal to engage a clutch mechanism to decouple the alternator from a shaft mechanically coupled to a drive mechanism of the vehicle, the decoupling causing the alternator to stop converting mechanical energy to electrical energy and stop supplying electrical energy to components of the vehicle" as recited in amended claim 1 and similarly in amended claims 8 and 15” on 7/1/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
As to point (A), upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of D'Amato (US20180215247A1).
(B) Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed “independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are patentably distinguished from Yamazaki. Phillips and Chatroux were cited for other reasons than Yamazaki and do not cure the deficiencies of Yamazaki. Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and are patentable at least by virtue of their dependence, in addition to further patentable recitations therein. Applicant therefore respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections to claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103” on 7/1/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
As to point (B), upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of D'Amato (US20180215247A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended claim recited the limitation of “receiving, by the one or more processors, a second threshold value corresponding to a second energy state of the alternator” which was not described in the specification. The amendment therefor is directed to new matters.
For the propose of examination, the examiner assume applicant intended for the claim to recite “receiving, by the one or more processors, a second threshold value corresponding to a second energy state of the energy storage device” similar to the claims 9 and 16.
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.
Claim 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US20150134162A1) in view of D'Amato (US20180215247A1).
In regards to claim 1, Yamazaki teaches A method for increasing operational efficiency of an alternator of a vehicle comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a threshold value corresponding to an energy state of an energy storage device(Yamazaki: Para 28 “control strategies are provided in the controller 50 to maintain the state-of-charge (SOC) of the battery 20 within a preferred predetermined operating window. For example, it may be desirable to maintain the SOC of the battery 20 during operation within a window of 40% and 60% of full charge”);
receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication of the energy state of the energy storage device (Yamazaki: Para 30 “If the SOC approaches the higher end of the preferred operating window, the controller may command an electric-only operating mode by disconnecting the engine 14 from the M/G 18 (if the engine is not already disconnected)”) and an operational state of the alternator (Yamazaki: Para 14 “the disconnect clutch 26 may be engaged and M/G 18 may operate as a generator to convert rotational energy provided by a crankshaft 28 and M/G shaft 30 into electrical energy to be stored in the battery 20”; Para 40 “the controller determines the status of the disconnect clutch 26 and/or the status of the engine 14”; i.e. M/G 18 may operate as a generator encompassing an alternator);
determining, by the one or more processors, if the indication of the energy state of the energy storage device exceeds the threshold value(Yamazaki: Para 30 “If the SOC approaches the higher end of the preferred operating window, the controller may command an electric-only operating mode by disconnecting the engine 14 from the M/G 18 (if the engine is not already disconnected)”); and
responsive to determining that the indication of the energy state of the energy storage device exceeds the threshold value and the alternator is in a charging state, transmitting, by the one or more processors, a control signal to engage a clutch mechanism to decouple the alternator from a shaft mechanically coupled to a drive mechanism of the vehicle, the decoupling causing the alternator to stop converting mechanical energy to electrical energy and stop supplying electrical energy to components of the vehicle (Yamazaki: Para 26 “The M/G 18 may additionally act as a generator during times of regenerative braking in which rotational energy from spinning wheels 42 is transferred back through the gearbox 24 and is converted into electrical energy for storage in the battery 20”; Para 30 “If the SOC approaches the higher end of the preferred operating window, the controller may command an electric-only operating mode by disconnecting the engine 14 from the M/G 18 (if the engine is not already disconnected). The controller may also use the M/G 18 to add torque to the powertrain while reducing engine torque. Use of the battery 20 to propel the vehicle 10 while reducing or eliminating torque output by the engine 14 will work to drain excess charge from the battery 20 to maintain the SOC within the preferred operating window. The controller may also cease any regenerative braking to inhibit the SOC from increasing past the higher end of the preferred operating window”).
Yet Yamazaki do not explicitly teach decouple the alternator from a shaft mechanically coupled to a drive mechanism of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, D'Amato teaches decouple the alternator from a shaft mechanically coupled to a drive mechanism of the vehicle(D'Amato: Fig. 1; Para 17 “When a disconnect clutch is at least partially engaged, power flow from the engine 14 to the M/G 18 or from the M/G 18 to the engine 14 is possible. For example, the disconnect clutch may be engaged and M/G 18 may operate as a generator to convert rotational energy provided by a crankshaft and M/G shaft into electrical energy to be stored in the battery associated with the motor…The engine 14 is continuously drivably connected to the shaft (e.g. driveshaft 36), whereas the M/G 18 is drivably connected to the shaft 36 only when a disconnect clutch is at least partially engaged”; Para 21 “As generally illustrated in the representative embodiment of FIG. 1, a controller may communicate signals to and/or from engine 14, a disconnect clutch (e.g. within the differential 40), M/G 18, battery, launch clutch, transmission gearbox, and power electronics.”; i.e. when disconnect clutch is disengaged the M/G 18 is not connected to the shaft)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Yamazaki with the feature of decouple the alternator from a shaft mechanically coupled to a drive mechanism of the vehicle disclosed by D'Amato. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “maximize fuel economy while also accounting for vehicle drivability” (D'Amato: Para 27).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Yamazaki and D'Amato teaches The method of claim 1, and Yamazaki further teaches further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a second threshold value corresponding to a second energy state of the energy storage device (Yamazaki: Para 28 “control strategies are provided in the controller 50 to maintain the state-of-charge (SOC) of the battery 20 within a preferred predetermined operating window. For example, it may be desirable to maintain the SOC of the battery 20 during operation within a window of 40% and 60% of full charge”);
determining, by the one or more processors, if the indication of the energy state of the energy storage device exceeds the second threshold value(Yamazaki: Para 29 “If the SOC approaches the lower end of the preferred operating window, then the controller may command the disconnect clutch 26 to engage and the engine 14 to start (if the engine is not already active). Engine power can then be used to both propel the vehicle and charge the battery 20 via the M/G 18 and power electronics 56”); and
responsive to determining that the indication of the energy state of the energy storage device does not exceed the threshold value and the alternator is in a non-charging state, transmitting, by the one or more processors, a second control signal to the clutch mechanism to disengage the clutch mechanism to fluidly couple the alternator to the shaft mechanically coupled to the drive mechanism of the vehicle(Yamazaki: Para 29 “If the SOC approaches the lower end of the preferred operating window, then the controller may command the disconnect clutch 26 to engage and the engine 14 to start (if the engine is not already active). Engine power can then be used to both propel the vehicle and charge the battery 20 via the M/G 18 and power electronics 56.”).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Yamazaki and D'Amato teaches The method of claim 1, and Yamazaki further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the threshold value corresponds to a fully charged energy storage device(Yamazaki: Para 28 “control strategies are provided in the controller 50 to maintain the state-of-charge (SOC) of the battery 20 within a preferred predetermined operating window. For example, it may be desirable to maintain the SOC of the battery 20 during operation within a window of 40% and 60% of full charge”).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Yamazaki and D'Amato teaches The method of claim 1, and Yamazaki further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors receive the indication of the energy state of the energy storage device at predetermined intervals during an operation of the vehicle(Yamazaki: Fig. 4 SOC graph; Para 28 “control strategies are provided in the controller 50 to maintain the state-of-charge (SOC) of the battery 20 within a preferred predetermined operating window. For example, it may be desirable to maintain the SOC of the battery 20 during operation within a window of 40% and 60% of full charge”).
As per claim 8, it recites A vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Yamazaki further teaches alternator(Yamazaki: Fig. 1 Element electric motor/generator (M/G) 18”);
an energy storage device(Yamazaki: Fig. 1 Element associated traction battery 20”); and
processing circuitry, including one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the one or more processors(Yamazaki: Para 19 “Controller 50 may include a microprocessor or central processing unit (CPU) in communication with various types of computer readable storage devices or media. Computer readable storage devices or media may include volatile and nonvolatile storage in read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), and keep-alive memory (KAM), for example. KAM is a persistent or non-volatile memory that may be used to store various operating variables while the CPU is powered down. Computer-readable storage devices or media may be implemented using any of a number of known memory devices such as PROMs (programmable read-only memory), EPROMs (electrically PROM), EEPROMs (electrically erasable PROM), flash memory, or any other electric, magnetic, optical, or combination memory devices capable of storing data, some of which represent executable instructions, used by the controller in controlling the engine or vehicle”).
As per claim 9, it recites A vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 2 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 10, it recites A vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 3 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 11, it recites A vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 4 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 15, it recites A system for increasing an efficiency of a work vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 8 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Yamazaki further teaches the work vehicle(Yamazaki: Fig. 1; Para 3 “a vehicle comprises an engine, an electric machine connected to a battery, and at least one controller”);
an alternator (Yamazaki: Fig. 1 Element electric motor/generator (M/G) 18”);
an energy storage device(Yamazaki: Fig. 1 Element associated traction battery 20”); and
processing circuitry, including one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the one or more processors(Yamazaki: Para 19 “Controller 50 may include a microprocessor or central processing unit (CPU) in communication with various types of computer readable storage devices or media. Computer readable storage devices or media may include volatile and nonvolatile storage in read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), and keep-alive memory (KAM), for example. KAM is a persistent or non-volatile memory that may be used to store various operating variables while the CPU is powered down. Computer-readable storage devices or media may be implemented using any of a number of known memory devices such as PROMs (programmable read-only memory), EPROMs (electrically PROM), EEPROMs (electrically erasable PROM), flash memory, or any other electric, magnetic, optical, or combination memory devices capable of storing data, some of which represent executable instructions, used by the controller in controlling the engine or vehicle”).
As per claim 16, it recites A system for increasing an efficiency of a work vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 2 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 17, it recites A system for increasing an efficiency of a work vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 3 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 18, it recites A system for increasing an efficiency of a work vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 4 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 5-6, 12-13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US20150134162A1) and D'Amato (US20180215247A1) further in view of Phillips (US6583599B1).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Yamazaki and D'Amato teaches The method of claim 1.
Yet the combination of Yamazaki and D'Amato do not explicitly teach wherein the threshold value corresponds to a capacity of a starter motor operationally coupled to the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Phillips teaches wherein the threshold value corresponds to a capacity of a starter motor operationally coupled to the vehicle(Phillips: Col.3 Lines 48-58 “Another threshold greater than the engine running threshold is the boost off threshold (SOC_BOOST_OFF). When the energy storage device has a state of charge that is below the boost off threshold, the state of charge manager does not allow the starter/alternator 26 to act as a motor and boost the power output of the hybrid electric powertrain. The boost off threshold is set because if boost were provided from the energy storage device, the energy storage device would likely not have enough power after boosting to allow the engine to restart”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The method of the combination of Yamazaki and D'Amato with the feature of wherein the threshold value corresponds to a capacity of a starter motor operationally coupled to the vehicle disclosed by Phillips. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “increasing the battery life of a hybrid electric vehicle” (Phillips: Col.1 Lines 57-58).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Yamazaki and D'Amato teaches The method of claim 1, and Phillips further teaches wherein the energy storage device is electrically coupled to a starter motor that is operationally coupled to the vehicle(Phillips: Fig. 1 Element 34 and 26; Col. 3 Lines 8-12 “starter/alternator 26 is used as a starter during engine startup and as an alternator to supply power to recharge the batteries of the vehicle and to supply electrical loads. Clutch 28 also allows starter/alternator 26 to start the engine prior to engagement of the transmission”; Col.3 Lines 48-58 “Another threshold greater than the engine running threshold is the boost off threshold (SOC_BOOST_OFF). When the energy storage device has a state of charge that is below the boost off threshold, the state of charge manager does not allow the starter/alternator 26 to act as a motor and boost the power output of the hybrid electric powertrain. The boost off threshold is set because if boost were provided from the energy storage device, the energy storage device would likely not have enough power after boosting to allow the engine to restart”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Yamazaki, D'Amato, and Phillips as in Claim 5 above.
As per claim 12, it recites A vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 5 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 13, it recites A vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 6 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 19, it recites A system for increasing an efficiency of a work vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 5 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 20, it recites A system for increasing an efficiency of a work vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 6 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US20150134162A1) and D'Amato (US20180215247A1) further in view of Chatroux (US20160325612A1).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Yamazaki and D'Amato teaches The method of claim 1.
Yet the combination of Yamazaki and D'Amato do not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle is a tractor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chatroux teaches wherein the vehicle is a tractor (Chatroux: Para 141 “The drive system can be used to drive a device other than an axle of an automobile vehicle; for example, it could be a transportable machine tool, worksite machinery, a tractor or other farm machinery. In the range of worksite and farm machinery, the invention makes it possible to run on battery energy for short term isolated operations, and the gasifier system can be started up for longer operations. The battery can also be recharged from the power outlet during storage phases”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The method of the combination of Yamazaki and D'Amato with the feature of wherein the vehicle is a tractor disclosed by Chatroux. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “the battery supplies some of the energy shortage to satisfy the demand or absorbs some of the excess energy above the demand” (Chatroux: Para 14).
As per claim 14, it recites A vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 7 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Center (US20090112495A1) disclosed A hybrid powertrain system includes an electromechanical transmission operatively coupled to an internal combustion engine and an electric machine connected to an electrical energy storage device to transmit mechanical power to an output member. A method for estimating an operating life of the electrical energy storage device includes monitoring temperature, state-of-charge and electric current of the electrical energy storage device. A temperature factor and a state-of-charge factor based, respectively, upon the monitored temperature and monitored state-of-charge during a predetermined time interval are determined. A battery life metric during the predetermined time interval is determined based upon the temperature factor, the state-of-charge factor, and the electric current discharge, and a total battery life metric based on the calculated battery life metric. The remaining operating life of the electrical energy storage device is determined based upon the total battery life metric.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/15/26
Prosecution Insights