DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-3 have been examined in this application. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Application JP2024-001359 filed in Japan on 01/09/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024s in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a switching unit” configured to switch the hybrid electric vehicle to hybrid driving, in Claim 1,
(b) “an acquisition unit” configured to acquire a temperature, in Claim 1, and
(c) “a setting unit” configured to set the switching value, in Claim 1.
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “unit” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a)-(c) specification ¶0015 states that the three “units” correspond to an ECU.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0191680A1 (Liu et al.) in view of Publication US2013/0066499A1 (Niste et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu et al. discloses a control device for a hybrid electric vehicle (see [0137, 0176]) including an engine and a motor that are traction power sources (see [0160], Figure 1), the control device comprising:
a switching unit (see [0137] invention implemented by processor) configured to switch the hybrid electric vehicle to hybrid driving (see Figure 3, S320, control engine to start) when a requested driving force requested to the hybrid electric vehicle is equal to or greater than a switching value (see when “yes” at S308 for driver demand power greater than start limit power. Examiner’s note: the plain and ordinary definition of force being: strength or energy exerted or brought to bear, Applicant’s specification does not recite “driving force” being e.g. newtons), and to switch the hybrid electric vehicle to motor driving (see S322 engine stop, [0192] “pure electric” mode when engine not used) when the requested driving force is less than a second switching value (see Figure 3 based on S314 driver demand power less than stop power limit), the hybrid driving being driving in which the hybrid electric vehicle travels with power of the engine (see [0186] engine start for vehicle travel), and the motor driving being driving in which the hybrid electric vehicle travels with power of the motor (see [0192] “pure electric” when engine not relied on);
an acquisition unit (see [0137]) configured to acquire a temperature of the engine (see [0176] at S302 temperature of engine coolant obtained); and
a setting unit (see [0137]) configured to set the switching value (see [0178] start power limit is determined) to a larger value as the temperature of the engine decreases (see [0189, 0191] Table I values for cold engine as opposed to Table II for warm and hot engine, and see top row e.g. 24 for speeds of 34 and 52 in Table I are higher than 19 in Table II).
Liu et al. does not explicitly recite switching to the motor driving:
when the requested driving force is less than the switching value.
Examiner’s note: In other words, Liu et al. does not explicitly compare the start and stop limit powers, and does not explicitly recite that that the stop power limit value is less than the start limit power.
However, Niste et al. teaches a technique in hybrid vehicle control (see [0027]) to switch to hybrid driving when requested force is above a switching value (see [0021] engine favored driving when instructed power above second predetermined level) and switching to motor driving (see [0019] electric motor only) when requested force:
is less than the switching value (see [0019] when requested power is below first predetermined level, and see [0020] first predetermined level is lower than second predetermined level).
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 control device of Liu et al. such that the purely electric mode requires requested force which is always lower than the switching value for engine operation, as taught by Niste et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing functions that minimize fuel consumption while ensuring reliability (see Niste et al., [0006-0007, 0020]).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu et al. discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein:
the acquisition unit is configured to acquire an amount of charge in a battery that is a power source of the motor (see [0176] actual SOC value of the battery); and
the setting unit is configured to set the switching value to a larger value as the amount of charge in the battery increases (see [0190] and Table I, y axis representing difference between target SOC and actual SOC and larger switching values higher on the table, e.g. 10% difference as opposed to 25% difference, such that “the start is not easy at a high SOC, but easy at a low SOC”).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu et al. discloses the control device according to claim 2, wherein:
the acquisition unit is configured to acquire a vehicle speed of the hybrid electric vehicle (see [0176] current vehicle speed); and
the setting unit is configured to set the switching value to a larger value as the vehicle speed decreases (see [0190] and Table I, x axis representing vehicle speed, and larger value e.g. for 10 km/h as opposed to 63).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669