DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendment and Argument filed on 05/20/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-11 are pending for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claim 9 correct the typographical error, therefore the previous objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (“a power storage device”, “a notification device”) that is coupled with functional language (“to exchange”, “to notify”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
”a power storage device that is configured to exchange power with the motor” recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take “a power storage device” as a capacitor, battery, or hardware capable of storing and electric charge or equivalent based on the following excerpt(s) from the specification:
Para [0052] : “For example, a
capacitor may be used as the power storage device.”
Para [0067] : “In the embodiment, the engine 22 corresponds to the "engine", the motor MG2 corresponds to the "motor", the battery 50 corresponds to the "power storage device", and the HVECU n0,engine ECU 24,15 and motor ECU 40 respond to the "controller". In addition, at least one of the display 63,display unit 92, and speaker 93 corresponds to a "notification device."”
” a notification device that is configured to notify information” recited in claims 2 and 10. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take “a notification device” as a display and/or speaker or equivalent, based on the following excerpt(s) from the specification:
Para [0067]: “In addition, at least one of the display 63,display unit 92, and speaker 93 corresponds to a "notification device."”
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 § 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(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al (US 20150233304 A1) henceforth referred to as Hara in view of Aratake et al (US 20220227349 A1) henceforth referred to as Aratake and further in view of Wachter et al (US 20150239335 A1) henceforth referred to as Wachter.
Regarding Claim 1 Hara teaches A hybrid electric vehicle comprising:
an engine for driving (para [0027] : “In the following, an internal combustion engine control system according to the present invention in an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings, taking an example of a case where the internal combustion engine control system is applied to a hybrid vehicle provided with an internal combustion engine and a motor as movement power sources.”);
a motor for driving(para [0027] : “In the following, an internal combustion engine control system according to the present invention in an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings, taking an example of a case where the internal combustion engine control system is applied to a hybrid vehicle provided with an internal combustion engine and a motor as movement power sources.”);
a power storage device that is configured to exchange power with the motor (para [0029] : “Electrical power stored in the battery 21 is supplied to the motor 12, and is besides supplied to various electrical units (such as a meter display section, an audio system, and a navigation system) of the vehicle 1 through the DC/DC convertor 22.”); and
a controller that is programmed to control the engine and motor to travel with the engine running in sport mode (para [0040] : “The vehicle 1 according to the embodiment of the present invention is provided with an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) 50 and a notifying section 60 as configuration of the internal combustion engine control system A.”, para [0043] : “As shown in FIG. 4, the throttle opening degree characteristics stored in the storage section 52 in the present embodiment are four throttle opening degree characteristics that are a normal mode, a sport mode, an eco-mode, and a plus sport mode.”),
wherein the controller is programmed to permit the sport mode when the sport mode is indicated and a state of charge of the power storage device is higher than a threshold value, and the controller is programmed to prohibit the towing mode when the towing mode is indicated and the state of charge is lower than or equal to the threshold value (para [0082] : “That is, if the electric storage amount of the battery 21 is lower than the predetermined electric storage amount, the engine control section 53 prohibits changing to the plus sport mode even when the operation amount of the accelerator pedal increases after selection of the plus sport mode by operation of the switch 44.”). However, Hara does not explicitly teach a towing mode, and
wherein the motor drives drive wheels of the vehicle via a drive shaft and a differential gear of the vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor (hybrid electric vehicle control systems with a towing mode) Aratake teaches a device a towing mode (para [0016] : “According to a tenth aspect of the invention, in the control apparatus according to the seventh aspect of the invention, the driving modes include a charge-amount sustaining mode and a charge-amount consuming mode, wherein, in the charge-amount sustaining mode, an engine intermittent operation in which the engine is placed alternately in an operated state and a stopped state is executed, and a motor driving of the vehicle with only the electric motor serving as a drive power source is enabled when the engine is in the stopped state, wherein, in the charge-amount consuming mode, the motor driving is continued more than in the charge-amount sustaining mode, wherein the first towing mode is selected when the vehicle is to run while towing the towed vehicle during execution of the charge-amount sustaining mode, and wherein the second towing mode is selected when the vehicle is to run while towing the towed vehicle during execution of the charge-amount consuming mode.”, as the charge-amount consuming mode teaches a towing mode with elevated charge consumption of the battery, the combination with Hara’s teachings of prohibiting a high energy consumption vehicle mode when a battery charge is below a threshold teaches the prohibition of a towing mode when a charge amount of a battery is below a threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Hara with the towing mode of to permit increased control over vehicle control in situations where towing is required. However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the motor drives drive wheels of the vehicle via a drive shaft and a differential gear of the vehicle.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (drive systems for hybrid vehicles), Wachter teaches wherein the motor drives drive wheels of the vehicle via a drive shaft and a differential gear of the vehicle (para [0026] : “For purely electric operation of the hybrid motor vehicle, a drive shaft 60 which runs coaxially with respect to the intermediate shaft 46 can be coupled fixedly to the intermediate shaft 46 so as to rotate with it with the aid of a third clutch K3. Via the drive shaft 60, the torque of the electric machine 30 can be introduced directly into a ring gear 62 of the differential gear mechanism 29 past the transmission clutch 14 and the transmission input shafts 20, 22 and also, in the case where both the first clutch K1 and the second clutch K2 are open, also past the planetary gear mechanism 38 and the motor shaft 18.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Hara and Aratake with the teachings of Wachter as a means to increase the versatility of drive systems available.
Regarding Claim 2 the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter teaches The hybrid electric vehicle according to Claim 1, further Hara teaches further comprising:
a notification device that is configured to notify information (para [0049] : “The notifying section 60 is provided with a display section 61, which is a monitor or the like that performs notification by image output, and a speaker 62 that performs notification by audio output. The display section 61 displays the state of the engine control section 53 in the plus sport mode, and the like.”),
wherein the controller is programmed to control the notification device to notify prohibition-related information related to the prohibition of the towing mode when the towing mode is prohibited (para [0083] : “Herein, the engine control section 53 changes the display content on the display section 61 from that in FIG. 6C to that in FIG. 6A. That is, the engine control section 53 makes the READY mark 61c turned off, and thereby notifies the driver that changing to the plus sport mode is now prohibited.”).
Regarding Claim 3 the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter teaches The hybrid electric vehicle according to Claim 1, further Hara teaches further comprising:
a towing mode switch for a user to indicate the towing mode (para [0082] : “That is, if the electric storage amount of the battery 21 is lower than the predetermined electric storage amount, the engine control section 53 prohibits changing to the plus sport mode even when the operation amount of the accelerator pedal increases after selection of the plus sport mode by operation of the switch 44.”),
wherein the controller is programmed to determine that the towing mode is indicated when the towing mode switch is operated by the user (para [0037] : “As the configuration of the internal combustion engine control system A, the vehicle 1 according to the embodiment of the present invention is provided with an operating section 40 arranged in the vehicle compartment. As shown in FIG. 2, the operating section 40 is provided with switches 41, 42, 43, 44, which are pressed down when the driver selects respective modes related to the throttle opening degree characteristics.”, Fig. 2, Fig. 2 shows the operating switches connected directly only to the engine control section 53, thus requiring the controller to determine the vehicle mode in order to operate the vehicle in the selected mode as described.).
Regarding Claim 5 the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter teaches The hybrid electric vehicle according to Claim 1, further Hara teaches
wherein the controller is programmed to determine that the towing mode is indicated when a vehicle load exceeds a predetermined load (para [0058] : “The vehicle speed is higher than or equal to a predetermined vehicle speed (for example, the value on the boundary between the low speed region and the medium speed region).”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Aratake and Wachter and further in view of Lee (US 20210039641 A1 ) henceforth referred to as Lee.
Regarding Claim 4 the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter teaches The hybrid electric vehicle according to Claim 1, however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is programmed to determine that the towing mode is indicated when the vehicle and a towed object are connected.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (vehicle towing mode systems), Lee teaches wherein the controller is programmed to determine that the towing mode is indicated when the vehicle and a towed object are connected (para [0064] : “The transmission control unit 20 may preferably determine that the vehicle is in a trailer towing mode in which the trailer is connected to the vehicle when a trailer connection signal is received from the data detection unit 10.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter with the towing mode determination of Lee as a means by which a vehicle can determine a towing mode.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Aratake and Wachter and further in view of Onogawa et al (US 20230271598 A1 ) henceforth referred to as Onogawa.
Regarding Claim 6 the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter teaches The hybrid electric vehicle according to Claim 1, however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is programmed to set the threshold value such that the threshold value increases as an elevation at a vehicle' s current location and/or an elevation of a planned travel route increases.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (battery control systems at various elevations), Onogawa teaches wherein the controller is programmed to set the threshold value such that the threshold value increases as an elevation at a vehicle' s current location and/or an elevation of a planned travel route increases (para [0073] : “As described above, when the elevation of the vehicle 1 exceeds the high altitude determination threshold TH1 and further exceeds the threshold TH2, the battery 13 can be charged by setting the line EB3 to be lower than the dotted line BT1, and thus the SOC of the battery 13 can be prevented from being exhausted.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter with the system of Onogawa to increase system reliability and accuracy as battery charge consumption is a variable of elevation along a route.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Aratake and Wachter and further in view of Lee et al (US 20170197608 A1 ) henceforth referred to as Lee 2.
Regarding Claim 7 the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter teaches The hybrid electric vehicle according to Claim 1, however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is programmed to set the threshold value such that the threshold value increases as a road gradient at a vehicle's current location and/or a road gradient of a planned travel route increases on an uphill side.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (energy consumption systems related to road gradient), Lee 2 teaches wherein the controller is programmed to set the threshold value such that the threshold value increases as a road gradient at a vehicle's current location and/or a road gradient of a planned travel route increases on an uphill side (para [0051] : “the controller 1 controls for preventing over discharge of the battery 20-1 by a torque reserve control of the engine 200 when the battery SOC is less than the charge threshold value under the condition of the uphill road and the slip”, as the system works to prevent over discharge based on a condition of an uphill road (higher gradient) and more energy is required for travel uphill at a higher gradient, the system prevents over discharge only by increasing a threshold in a case when more energy would be required such as increased gradient on uphill travel.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter with the system of Lee 2 to prevent over discharge of a battery under a condition of higher energy usage with an increased road gradient.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Aratake and Wachter and further in view of Imai et al (US 20150046011 A1 ) henceforth referred to as Imai.
Regarding Claim 8 the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter teaches The hybrid electric vehicle according to Claim 1, However the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is programmed to set the threshold value such that the threshold value is higher when the vehicle is traveling with the engine stopped compared to when the vehicle is traveling with the engine running (para [0046] : “For example, when the SOC decrease speed is faster, the SOC threshold value setting portion 84 sets the second threshold value higher as compared to when the speed is slower.”).
However, in a similar field of endeavor (SOC threshold determination based on vehicle modes), Imai teaches wherein the controller is programmed to set the threshold value such that the threshold value is higher when the vehicle is traveling with the engine stopped compared to when the vehicle is traveling with the engine running (para [0046] : “For example, when the SOC decrease speed is faster, the SOC threshold value setting portion 84 sets the second threshold value higher as compared to when the speed is slower.”, as it is taught that a threshold is increases as SOC decrease is faster, which occurs in the situation of an engine not running during travel of a hybrid vehicle as all driving force comes from the electric motor driven by the power source, the threshold value is higher when the engine is stopped.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter with the system of Imai to increase control and prevent excess discharge of a battery in a hybrid vehicle.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Aratake and Wachter and further in view of Sjodin (US 20180029488 A1) henceforth referred to as Sjodin.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter teaches The hybrid electric vehicle according to Claim 1, however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the hybrid electric vehicle is capable of external charging.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (charging of hybrid vehicles) Sjodin teaches wherein the hybrid electric vehicle is capable of external charging (para [0055] : “The hybrid vehicle 1 is positioned adjacent a charging station 3 in order to charge the hybrid vehicle 1 by means of a charging cable 5 of the charging station 3, which charging cable 5 is adapted for transferring electrical energy to, and provide communication with, the hybrid vehicle 1.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Hara, Aratake, and Wachter with the external charging of Sjodin to increase ease and efficiency of charging the hybrid vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Shin et al (20230356717 A1) teaches a method of controlling a towing mode of an vehicle, which may easily charge a battery of a towed vehicle by allowing a motor of the towed vehicle to output a charging torque for charging the battery and allowing a motor of the towed vehicle to output a creep torque or a regenerative braking torque capable of charging the battery even upon deceleration traveling together with a compensation control of increasing engine output power of a towing vehicle compared to default output power upon acceleration and constant speed traveling by selecting one of an eco-towing mode, a power towing mode, and a target charging towing mode for charging the battery of the towed vehicle when the towing vehicle, which is a hybrid electric vehicle, tows the towed vehicle, which is an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle.
Matsuzaki et al (US 20160046278 A1) teaches a hybrid work vehicle capable of smooth work travel using a work device with a low output internal combustion engine, while avoiding battery exhaustion. The vehicle includes an internal combustion engine that supplies drive power to a travel device and a work device via power transmission means, a motor generator that is driven by a battery, a load information generation part that generates load information representing a sudden increase in rotational load, an assist characteristic determination part that determines motor assist characteristics defining an assist amount and an assist time period of assist control based on load information, and a motor control unit that controls the motor generator based on the motor assist characteristics.
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 DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights