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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 1/8/2025. Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 1/8/2025 has been 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.
3. 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.
4. 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, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations in Claims 1 and 4 are:
A switching unit (Claim 1)
A determination unit (Claim 1)
A setting unit (Claim 1)
An acquisition unit (Claim 4)
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.
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 § 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.
5. Claims 1-4 are 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 claims 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 disclosure does not describe the claimed functions of “a switching unit configured to switch a traveling mode of the hybrid vehicle to a motor traveling mode in which the engine is stopped and the motor is driven when a required value related to the motor is less than a switching value…,” “a determination unit configured to determine whether a driving mode of the hybrid vehicle is an autonomous driving mode or a manual driving mode,” “a setting unit configured to set the switching value to a first value when the driving mode is the manual driving mode…,” and “an acquisition unit configured to acquire a charged amount of a battery that is a power source of the motor,” which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention. The omitted subject matter is critical for one of ordinary skill in the art to know what specific computer components may accomplish the claimed functionality. Any claimed not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2 and 3, have been included based on their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claimed not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2 and 3, have been included based on their dependency.
7. Claims 1 and 4 limitations include “a switching unit configured to switch a traveling mode of the hybrid vehicle to a motor traveling mode in which the engine is stopped and the motor is driven when a required value related to the motor is less than a switching value…,” “a determination unit configured to determine whether a driving mode of the hybrid vehicle is an autonomous driving mode or a manual driving mode,” “a setting unit configured to set the switching value to a first value when the driving mode is the manual driving mode…,” and “an acquisition unit configured to acquire a charged amount of a battery that is a power source of the motor,” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A switching unit, determination unit, setting unit, and acquisition unit are being interpreted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation as a processor with a controller for controlling the motor and engine of the hybrid vehicle.
8. The disclosure does not explicitly define the structure of the switching unit, determination unit, setting unit, and acquisition unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20160244048 A1) in view of Endo (US 20180056982 A1).
13. Regarding Claim 1, Sato teaches a control device for a hybrid vehicle including a motor and an engine, the control device comprising (Sato: [0003]):
A switching unit configured to switch a traveling mode of the hybrid vehicle to a motor traveling mode in which the engine is stopped and the motor is driven when a required value related to the motor is less than a switching value, and to switch the traveling mode to a hybrid traveling mode in which the engine is driven when the required value is equal to or greater than the switching value (Sato: [0043] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the required value related to the motor can be any parameter of the motor.).
Sato fails to explicitly teach a determination unit configured to determine whether a driving mode of the hybrid vehicle is an autonomous driving mode or a manual driving mode; and a setting unit configured to set the switching value to a first value when the driving mode is the manual driving mode, and to set the switching value to a second value greater than the first value when the driving mode is the autonomous driving mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor Endo teaches a determination unit configured to determine whether a driving mode of the hybrid vehicle is an autonomous driving mode or a manual driving mode (Endo: [0008] Note that the controller must determine the driving mode to set the target value.);
And a setting unit configured to set the switching value to a first value when the driving mode is the manual driving mode, and to set the switching value to a second value greater than the first value when the driving mode is the autonomous driving mode (Endo: [0008] Note that the SOC falling below a first lower limit threshold value in manual operation is equivalent to the power used by the hybrid vehicle exceeding a first threshold. Additionally, the SOC falling below a second lower limit threshold that is lower than the first lower limit threshold in autonomous operation is equivalent to the power used by the hybrid vehicle exceeding a second threshold. Note that the SOC is power remaining for the hybrid vehicle, which is the inverse of the power used. Therefore, the second threshold for the power used in autonomous mode is greater than the first threshold.).
Sato and Endo are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of hybrid vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato to incorporate the teachings of Endo to set the switching value dependent on the manual or autonomous driving modes because it provides the benefit of propelling the vehicle for a longer period of time in the electric in order to improve ride comfort. With a variable threshold based on the driving mode, the vehicle is able to preferentially operate in the motor traveling mode so that autonomous control has the better ride quality for passengers.
14. Regarding Claim 2, Sato and Endo remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Endo does not explicitly teach the second value increases as a vehicle speed of the hybrid vehicle decreases. However, Endo teaches in [0096] that EV mode is the preferred mode when the hybrid vehicle is travelling below a speed threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to increase the second value as the vehicle speed decreases as similarly shown in Endo's [0096] use of a threshold speed value to indicate the EV mode is the preferred mode to provide the benefit of improved ride comfort for the passengers. Endo explains that it is preferred to stay in the EV mode for longer periods of time, including when the vehicle speed is below a threshold, because it produces a better ride quality for the passengers. Increasing the second value also provides the benefit of staying in EV (motor traveling) mode for longer periods of time because the required value would have to increase to a higher value in order to switch to a hybrid mode.
15. Regarding Claim 3, Sato and Endo remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Endo teaches the first value is a fixed value that does not change depending on the vehicle speed (Endo: [0008] Note that the lower limit value does not change based on a speed in manual mode.)
16. Regarding Claim 4, Sato and Endo remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Endo teaches an acquisition unit configured to acquire a charged amount of a battery that is a power source of the motor (Endo: [0055]),
Endo does not explicitly teach the second value increases as the charged amount of the battery increases. However, Endo teaches in [0127] that the HV mode is preferred when the hybrid vehicle travels above a threshold distance. Note that the travel distance exceeding the distance threshold is equivalent to the charged amount of the battery decreasing. Also, the vehicle switching to HV mode when the predetermined distance is exceeding is equivalent to the second value decreases. As a result, the charged amount of the battery decreasing while the second value decreases in a linear relationship and therefore, the second value would increase when the charged amount of the battery increases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to increase the second value as the charged amount of the battery increases as similarly shown in Endo's [0127] use of a distance threshold to indicate when the HV mode is the preferred mode to provide the benefit maintaining in EV mode for longer periods of time for improved ride comfort for the passengers. Endo explains that it is preferred to stay in the EV mode for longer periods of time, including when the vehicle distance is below a predetermined threshold, because it produces a better ride quality for the passengers. Increasing the second value also provides the benefit of staying in EV (motor traveling) mode for longer periods of time because the required value would have to increase to a higher value in order to switch to a hybrid mode.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burkholz (US 20200231138 A1)
Nishimine (US 20180065622 A1)
Ohmura (US 20150239463 A1)
Porras (US 20160347308 A1)
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights