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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 07/17/2026.
Claims 12-21 have been presented for examination.
Claims 12-21 are currently rejected.
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0323846).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Ishii does not teach a “disconnecting device” and therefore does not teach the claimed “disconnecting device provided between the generator and the lithium-ion battery,” and states that Ishii “does not disclose any ‘device’ at all.” See Applicant Remarks page 6. The Applicant further argues that Ishii’s open circuit voltage does not teach or suggest a “disconnecting device provided between the generator and the lithium-ion battery.” Specifically, that a “device between terminals of the low voltage battery cannot be likened to a ‘disconnecting device provided between the generator and the lithium-ion battery.” See Applicant Remarks page 6.
The Examiner has considered the arguments presented and respectfully disagrees. First, the claim includes a preamble. The preamble is primarily directed to a vehicle in which the method is applied, which does not further define the claimed limitations of the method. According to MPEP 2111.02(II), when the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Therefore, the preamble, including the disconnecting device of the vehicle being provided between the generator and the lithium-ion battery, is not expressly required by the claimed limitations.
Even so, Ishii expressly discloses an electronic control apparatus 70 (i.e., a device) for a vehicle. Ishii further discloses that “the DC/DC power supply voltage VLdc is reduced from an open circuit voltage OCV,” see ¶ 50 as previously cited, such that the “open circuit voltage OCV corresponds to a voltage between terminals of the low voltage battery 34 in a stage in which any load is not applied to the low voltage battery 34.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “open circuit voltage” specifically refers to a difference in potential when a cell is disconnected from a circuit. See ScienceDirect, “Batteries: Nomenclature.” Further, the electronic control apparatus 70 includes a starting control portion 76 which may switch the Stop and Start (S&S) to an off state. Therefore, the electronic control apparatus is the disconnecting device. The electronic control apparatus is positioned between the generator and the battery, see Fig. 1 depicting the electronic control apparatus 70 receiving input signal from the batteries and outputting signal to the motor generator. Therefore, Ishii teaches and suggests a “disconnecting device provided between the generator and the lithium-ion battery.”
The Applicant further argues that Ishii operates based on the output voltage of the power storage device and that the operation is not based on the "temperature of the lithium-ion battery" as recited in claim 12. The Applicant argues that the cited portion of Ishii does not mention "temperature" at all, much less "prohibiting the fuel efficiency improvement control when temperature of the lithium-ion battery is a predetermined temperature or higher," as recited in claim 12. See Applicant Remarks page 7.
The Examiner has considered the arguments presented and respectfully disagrees. Ishii in at least ¶ 68 expressly discloses that a predetermined condition includes that “the low-voltage-battery temperature THlowb is not lower than the predetermined temperature value THlowbf [i.e., is a predetermined temperature or higher].” Ishii ¶ 8, as previously cited, expressly discloses that “the starting control portion is configured to not allow the execution of the idle-stop control ... in a case in which at least one of the plurality of conditions is not satisfied.” Therefore, Ishii expressly discloses temperature of the battery. Thus, Ishii teaches and suggests "prohibiting the fuel efficiency improvement control when temperature of the lithium-ion battery is a predetermined temperature or higher.”
The Applicant further argues that Ishii does not teach or suggest “an interruption state” of the recited disconnecting device. See Applicant Remarks page 8. The Examiner has considered the arguments presented and respectfully disagrees. The Applicant appears to conclude that Ishii does not teach the recited interruption state without providing additional explanation or contrary evidence establishing that the reference being relied on would not enable a skilled artisan to produce the recited limitations. See MPEP 2145. Specifically, the Applicant does not provide contrary evidence establishing that the off state is not an interruption state. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Even so, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an off state resulting from an open circuit constitutes an interruption state, as the idling of Ishii caused by the electronic control apparatus, see at least ¶ 49, results in a temporary stopping of the engine, thereby interrupting the state of the circuit. Thus, Ishii does teach and suggest an interruption state of the disconnecting device.
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection. Further explanation to support the prior art citations have been provided for added clarification.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0323846).
Regarding claim 12, Ishii discloses a method of controlling a vehicle (Ishii ¶ 80 discloses that a vehicle may be a “hybrid electric vehicle”) having an engine (Ishii ¶ 3 “an engine”), a generator driven by the engine and generating power (Ishii ¶ 25 “electric motor MG is a motor generator”, an automatic driving electric load including a first electric load and a second electric load that form a redundant system (Ishii ¶ 25 “high voltage battery 26 is an electric-power storage device for supplying and receiving the electric power to and from the electric motor MG”), a lithium-ion battery charged by power generated by the generator (Ishii ¶ 30 “high voltage battery 26 is a second battery such as lithium-ion battery”) and supplying power necessary for automatic driving of the vehicle to the automatic driving electric load (Ishii ¶ 50 “DC/DC power supply voltage VLdc is increased”), a second power storage device charged by power generated by the generator (Ishii ¶ 30 discloses a “low voltage battery 34 is a low-voltage power supply device which is to be chargeable by the high voltage battery 26”), and a disconnecting device provided between the generator and the lithium-ion battery (Ishii ¶ 50 “open circuit”), the method comprising:
executing a fuel efficiency improvement control that reduces driving energy of the generator when predetermined conditions are satisfied; (Ishii ¶ 9 discloses allowing “execution of the pre-start-stage idle-stop control, in the case in which the plurality of conditions are satisfied,” wherein the execution of idle-stop control constitutes a “fuel efficient improvement control” in accordance with ¶ 10 of the instant specification. The Examiner notes that the limitation “that reduces driving energy” appears to recite an intended outcome or use and is not expressly required to be performed by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111.01.)
prohibiting the fuel efficiency improvement control when temperature of the lithium-ion battery is a predetermined temperature or higher; (Ishii ¶ 8 discloses “the starting control portion is configured to not allow the execution of the idle-stop control ... in a case in which at least one of the plurality of conditions is not satisfied.” Also see ¶ 68 establishing that a condition includes the temperature of the lithium-ion battery not being lower than a predetermined temperature [i.e., is a predetermined temperature or higher].)
controlling the disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state when executing the fuel efficiency improvement control; and (Ishii ¶ 50 discloses that “As the operation of the starter motor 32 is initiated, the DC/DC power supply voltage VLdc is reduced from an open circuit voltage OCV” wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an open circuit is an interruption state. Also see ¶ 33 “IG-OFF state is a state that disables the vehicle 10 to run and disables also a part of functions that is not involved in running of the vehicle 10.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an off state of a circuit disconnects the power from being provided. Also see Fig. 1)
when the disconnecting device is in the interruption state, supplying power to the first electric load from the lithium-ion battery, and supplying power to the second electric load from the second power storage device. (Ishii in at least ¶ 50 discloses “When the engine 12 has been successfully started and the operation of the starter motor 32 has been completed, the DC/DC power supply voltage VLdc is increased toward the open circuit voltage OCV (see time point t2 and thereafter). The value of the DC/DC power supply voltage VLdc at the time point t2 at which the start of the engine 12 is successfully done and the operation of the starter motor 32 is completed, corresponds to the engine-start voltage VLst.” Also see at least ¶¶ 26, 30 and Fig. 2.)
While Ishii does not expressly disclose that the idle-stop control reduces driving energy of the generator, the Examiner notes that this recited reduction is directed to an intended use and is not expressly required to be performed by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Even so, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the execution of the idle-stop control to expressly teach that performing the idle-stop control would result in reducing the driving energy of the generator, with reasonable expectation of success, because it would be possible to suppress the execution of the pre-start-stage idle-stop control First Idling Stop (FIS) from being erroneously allowed while suppressing loss of the opportunity of the execution of the pre-start-stage idle-stop control FIS (Ishii ¶ 74), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 13, Ishii discloses the method of controlling the vehicle as claimed in claim 12, further comprising:
when the temperature of the lithium-ion battery is a second predetermined temperature or higher, prohibiting the automatic driving of the vehicle (Ishii ¶ 71 discloses “step S50 is implemented to determine whether the low-voltage-battery temperature Thlowb is at least the predetermined temperature value THlowbf” such that “step S50 is implemented to determine whether the low-voltage-battery temperature Thlowb is at least the predetermined temperature value THlowbf” and “When an affirmative determination is made at step S50, namely, when the above-described second and third conditions are satisfied, step S60 is implemented to make the FIS determination that allows the execution of the pre-start-stage idle-stop control FIS and to place the FIS allowance flag into the ON state, whereby the determination (as to whether the execution of the idle-stop control CTspidl is to be allowed or not) is completed” which includes “allowing the execution of the idle-stop control CTspidl includes (i) allowing the pre-start-stage idle-stop control FIS in a next trip of the vehicle 10 after the vehicle power is placed into the IG-ON state from the IG-OFF state.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that executing idle-stop control prohibits automatic driving.), wherein the predetermined temperature is lower than the second predetermined temperature. (Ishii ¶ 37 discloses a temperature range. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a range includes and upper and lower threshold, a first value defining the lower threshold being lower than a second upper limit threshold.)
Regarding claim 14, Ishii discloses the method of controlling the vehicle as claimed in claim 12, wherein:
the fuel efficiency improvement control is a control that stops the drive and the power generation of the generator by the engine. (Ishii ¶ 9 discloses “a pre-start-stage idle-stop control executed to keep stopping the engine without starting the engine when the vehicle has not started to run after the power ON of the vehicle and a post-start-stage idle-stop control executed to temporarily stop the engine during running or stop of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 15, Ishii discloses the method of controlling the vehicle as claimed in claim 12, wherein:
the fuel efficiency improvement control is an idling stop control that stops the engine at a time of vehicle stop. (Ishii in at least ¶ 28 “The idle-stop control CTspidl is an automatic engine stop control that is executed to automatically stop the engine 12 by fuel cut or the like”)
Regarding claim 16, Ishii discloses the method of controlling the vehicle as claimed in claim 12, further comprising:
when the fuel efficiency improvement control is prohibited, supplying power generated by the generator to the automatic driving electric load. (Ishii in at least ¶ 64 discloses “When not allowing the execution of the pre-start-stage idle-stop control FIS [i.e., fuel efficiency improvement control is prohibited], the starting control portion 76 outputs a command requesting the engine 12 to be started for the first time after the vehicle power is placed into the IG-ON state.”)
Regarding claim 17, Ishii discloses the method of controlling the vehicle as claimed in claim 16, further comprising:
when the fuel efficiency improvement control is prohibited, controlling the generator so as to become a voltage at which the lithium-ion battery is substantially not charged. (Ishii in at least ¶ 8 discloses “the starting control portion is configured to not allow the execution of the idle-stop control and to crank the engine by using the motor” wherein cranking the engine includes a low voltage battery 34 “connected to the DC/DC converter 20, so as to be charged with the electric power originally supplied from the high voltage battery 26 through the DC/DC converter 20,” see ¶ 30, and wherein the high voltage battery 26 is a “lithium-ion battery,” see ¶ 30. The Examiner notes that “so as to become” appears to recite an intended outcome or use and is therefore not expressly required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP 2111.01.)
Regarding claim 18, Ishii discloses the method of controlling the vehicle as claimed in claim 12, wherein:
setting a withstand current value of the disconnecting device to be higher than a withstand current value of the lithium-ion battery. (Ishii in at least ¶ 10 “setting an initial value of the smoothed value to a voltage value that is not lower than an open circuit voltage of the power storage device”)
Regarding claim 19, Ishii discloses the method of controlling the vehicle as claimed in claim 18, further comprising:
setting a maximum power generation current value of the generator to be lower than the withstand current value of the lithium-ion battery. (Ishii in at least ¶ 37 discloses that “An outputtable electric power of the low voltage battery 34, i.e., a maximum electric power that can be outputted from the low voltage battery 34.”)
Regarding claim 20, Ishii discloses the method of controlling the vehicle as claimed in claim 12, wherein:
the second power storage device is a lead battery. (Ishii ¶ 30 discloses “The low voltage battery 34 is a secondary battery such as lead-acid battery.”)
Regarding claim 21, Ishii discloses a control device of a vehicle comprising:
an engine; (Ishii in at least ¶ 7)
a generator driven by the engine and generating power; (Ishii ¶ 25 “electric motor MG is a motor generator”),
an automatic driving electric load including a first electric load and a second electric load that form a redundant system; (Ishii ¶ 25 “high voltage battery 26 is an electric-power storage device for supplying and receiving the electric power to and from the electric motor MG”)
a lithium-ion battery charged by power generated by the generator (Ishii ¶ 30 “high voltage battery 26 is a second battery such as lithium-ion battery”) and supplying power necessary for automatic driving of the vehicle to the automatic driving electric load; (Ishii ¶ 25 “high voltage battery 26 is an electric-power storage device for supplying and receiving the electric power to and from the electric motor MG”)
a second power storage device charged by power generated by the generator; (Ishii ¶ 30 “high voltage battery 26 is a second battery such as lithium-ion battery”)
a disconnecting device provided between the generator and the lithium-ion battery; and (Ishii ¶ 33 discloses an “IG-OFF state is a state that disables the vehicle 10 to run and disables also a part of functions that is not involved in running of the vehicle 10.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an off state of a circuit disconnects the power from being provided. Also see at least ¶ 10 “open circuit” and Fig. 1)
a controller configured to execute a fuel efficiency improvement control that reduces driving energy of the generator when predetermined conditions are satisfied, and (Ishii ¶ 9 discloses allowing “execution of the pre-start-stage idle-stop control, in the case in which the plurality of conditions are satisfied,” wherein the execution of idle-stop control constitutes a “fuel efficient improvement control” in accordance with ¶ 10 of the instant specification. The Examiner notes that the limitation “that reduces driving energy” appears to recite an intended outcome or use and is not expressly required to be performed by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111.01.)
prohibit the fuel efficiency improvement control when temperature of the lithium-ion battery is a predetermined temperature or higher control the disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state when executing the fuel efficiency improvement control, and (Ishii ¶ 9 discloses allowing “execution of the pre-start-stage idle-stop control, in the case in which the plurality of conditions are satisfied,” wherein the execution of idle-stop control constitutes a “fuel efficient improvement control” in accordance with ¶ 10 of the instant specification. The Examiner notes that the limitation “that reduces driving energy” appears to recite an intended outcome or use and is not expressly required to be performed by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111.01.)
when the disconnecting device is in the interruption state, supply power to the first electric load from the lithium-ion battery, and supply power to the second electric load from the second power storage device. (Ishii in at least ¶ 30 discloses “The low voltage battery 34 is a low-voltage power supply device which is to be chargeable by the high voltage battery 26 and which is configured to supply the electric power to the starter motor 32,” wherein “The high voltage battery 26 is a second battery such as lithium-ion battery”)
While Ishii does not expressly disclose that the idle-stop control reduces driving energy of the generator, the Examiner notes that this recited reduction is directed to an intended use and is not expressly required to be performed by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Even so, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the execution of the idle-stop control to expressly teach that performing the idle-stop control would result in reducing the driving energy of the generator, with reasonable expectation of success, because it would be possible to suppress the execution of the pre-start-stage idle-stop control First Idling Stop (FIS) from being erroneously allowed while suppressing loss of the opportunity of the execution of the pre-start-stage idle-stop control FIS (Ishii ¶ 74), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights