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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a it is dependent from subsequent claim 12 instead of claim 1. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the dependency of claim 11
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3–5, and 9, 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al. (US 2020/0064227 A1, “Im”) in view of Kim (US 2016/0082945 A1, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Im discloses an emergency operating system for a hybrid vehicle, including an engine and a controller, wherein the hybrid vehicle is controlled to be driven even when a bearing installed in the engine is damaged, and when a damage to the bearing is detected, the controller maintains driving of the engine in a preset limp-home mode, by detecting and confirming damage to the engine bearing and thereafter performing limp-home mode while restricting operation of the engine to prevent progression of the bearing damage and permit limited vehicle travel (Im, paragraphs [0131–0144]; Fig. 5, S150–S191).
However, Im does not explicitly state, “a drive motor selectively connected to the engine by a clutch; a hybrid starter and generator (HSG) configured to start the engine or configured to be operated by the engine to generate electric power”; that the controller “compares whether a state of charge (SOC) of a high voltage battery is greater than or equal to a first reference value which is preset to drive the hybrid vehicle using the engine, and stops driving of the drive motor and the HSG when the SOC is greater than or equal to the first reference value to control the hybrid vehicle in a first emergency operating mode in which the hybrid vehicle is driven using only a driving force of the engine”; or that “after the first emergency operating mode is performed, the controller compares whether the SOC is lower than or equal to a second reference value which is preset as the need for charging the high voltage battery, and when the SOC is lower than or equal to the second reference value, the controller controls the hybrid vehicle in a second emergency operating mode in which the clutch is separated, the engine is operated to allow the HSG to generate the electric power, and the hybrid vehicle is driven by the drive motor.”
However, Kim teaches engine 11, drive motor 12 selectively connected to engine 11 by clutch 13, HSG 16 configured to start engine 11 or be operated by engine 11 to generate electric power, battery 19, and a controller configured to control the hybrid vehicle (Kim, [0005–0006]; Fig. 1). Kim teaches determining whether charging is required according to SOC of battery 19 (Kim, [0023]; Fig. 3, S110); controlling engine 11 and HSG 16 for generation of electric power (Kim, [0022–0024]; Fig. 3, S120); releasing clutch 13 to interrupt transmission of engine power to drive motor 12 (Kim, [0025]; Fig. 3, S130); and operating engine 11 to allow HSG 16 to generate electric power while the hybrid vehicle is driven by drive motor 12 in EV mode (Kim, [0025–0026]; Fig. 3, S130–S150). Kim further teaches that, with clutch 13 joined, engine driving power is transmitted toward the driving wheels, whereas HSG 16 is selectively operated for generation when battery charging is required (Kim, [0005–0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Im reference and include features from the Kim reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility sought by Im while providing Kim's SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Regarding Claim 3, Im discloses an emergency operating system for a hybrid vehicle wherein, when damage to the bearing is detected, the controller maintains driving of the damaged engine in a preset limp-home mode (Im, [0131]–[0144] Fig. 5, S150–S191).
However, Im does not explicitly state “when the SOC is not greater than or equal to the first reference value, the controller controls the hybrid vehicle in a second emergency operating mode in which the clutch is separated, the engine operates the HSG to generate the electric power, and the hybrid vehicle is driven by the drive motor.”
On the other hand, Kim teaches determining whether battery charging is required according to SOC (Kim, [0023]; Fig. 3, S110); releasing clutch 13 to interrupt transmission of engine power to drive motor 12 (Kim, [0025]; Fig. 3, S130); operating engine 11 to drive HSG 16 to generate electric power (Kim, [0022]–[0024], [0026]; Fig. 3, S120–S150); and driving the hybrid vehicle using drive motor 12 in EV mode while clutch 13 is released (Kim, [0025–0026]; Fig. 3, S130–S150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Im reference and include features from the Kim reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility sought by Im while providing Kim's SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Regarding Claim 4, Im discloses an emergency operating system for a hybrid vehicle wherein, when damage to the bearing is detected, the controller maintains driving of the damaged engine in a preset limp-home mode (Im, [0131–0144]; Fig. 5, S150–S191).
However, Im does not explicitly state “when the SOC is not lower than or equal to the second reference value, the controller controls the hybrid vehicle in the first emergency operating mode.”
On the other hand, Kim teaches determining whether battery charging is required according to whether SOC satisfies a predetermined charging condition and initiating the HSG charging control when SOC indicates the need for charging (Kim, [0023]; Fig. 3, S110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Im reference and include features from the Kim reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility sought by Im while providing Kim's SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Regarding Claim 5, Im discloses that “the controller controls the engine to be operated at an output that is lower than a maximum output in the limp-home mode,” by restricting operation of the damaged engine to prevent progression of bearing damage while maintaining sufficient engine operation for limited vehicle travel (Im, ¶¶0141–0144; Fig. 5, S191).
However, Im does not explicitly state that the controller “controls the engine to operate the HSG to generate the electric power.”
On the other hand, Kim teaches controlling engine 11 to operate HSG 16 to generate electric power and charge battery 19, including controlling engine torque and HSG torque for the required generation (Kim, ¶¶0006, 0022–0024, 0026; Fig. 3, S120–S150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Im reference and include features from the Kim reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility sought by Im while providing Kim's SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Regarding Claim 9, Im discloses detecting damage to a bearing installed in the engine and, when damage to the bearing is detected, maintaining driving of the engine in a preset limp-home mode (Im, ¶¶0131–0144; Fig. 5, S150–S191).
However, Im does not explicitly state that “the controller monitors the SOC and controls the engine, the drive motor, and the HSG according to the SOC.”
On the other hand, Kim teaches monitoring/determining SOC of battery 19 and, according to the SOC-dependent charging determination, controlling engine 11, drive motor 12, clutch 13 and HSG 16, including controlling engine/HSG torque, releasing clutch 13, generating electric power using HSG 16, and propelling the vehicle using drive motor 12 (Kim, ¶¶0022–0026; Fig. 3, S110–S150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Im reference and include features from the Kim reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility sought by Im while providing Kim's SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Regarding claim 11, Im discloses maintaining the damaged vehicle in a limp-home operation that permits limited travel following detection of bearing damage so that the vehicle may travel to a location where maintenance can be performed (Im, ¶¶0141–0144; Fig. 5, S191).
However, Im does not explicitly state that “the controller drives the drive motor to control the hybrid vehicle to travel from a current location to a safe place.”
On the other hand, Kim teaches controlling drive motor 12 to drive the hybrid vehicle in EV mode while clutch 13 is released and engine power transmission to drive motor 12 is interrupted (Kim, ¶¶0005, 0022, 0025–0026; Fig. 1; Fig. 3, S130–S150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Im reference and include features from the Kim reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility sought by Im while providing Kim's SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Regarding claim 12, Im discloses that “the bearing is a bearing installed between a connecting rod and a crankshaft,” specifically bearing 13 positioned between the large end of connecting rod 11 and crank pin 12b of crankshaft 12 (Im, ¶¶0036–0043; Figs. 1–3).
However, Im does not explicitly state the drive motor, clutch, HSG, high-voltage battery and SOC-responsive hybrid control recited by claim 1.
On the other hand, Kim teaches engine 11, drive motor 12, clutch 13, HSG 16, battery 19 and SOC-responsive control of the engine, drive motor, clutch and HSG (Kim, ¶¶0005–0006, 0022–0026; Figs. 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Im reference and include features from the Kim reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility sought by Im while providing Kim's SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Regarding claim 13, Im discloses “a bearing damage detection operation of detecting and confirming a damage to the bearing installed in the engine” and “an engine driving maintaining operation of maintaining driving of the engine in a preset limp-home mode” (Im, ¶¶0131–0144; Fig. 5, S150–S191).
However, Im does not explicitly state “a first state of charge (SOC) comparison operation of comparing whether an SOC of a high voltage battery is greater than or equal to a first reference value which is preset to drive the hybrid vehicle by the engine”; “when the SOC is greater than or equal to the first reference value, a first emergency operating operation of stopping the drive motor and the HSG and driving the hybrid vehicle using only a driving force of the engine”; and “when the SOC is not greater than or equal to the first reference value in the first SOC comparison operation, a second emergency operating operation of separating a clutch installed between the engine and the drive motor, operating the engine to allow the HSG to generate the electric power, and operating the hybrid vehicle by the drive motor.”
On the other hand, Kim teaches engine 11, drive motor 12, clutch 13, HSG 16, battery 19 and an SOC-responsive hybrid operating method (Kim, ¶¶0005–0006; Fig. 1). Kim teaches determining whether battery charging is required according to SOC (Kim, ¶0023; Fig. 3, S110); controlling engine/HSG torque (Kim, ¶¶0022–0024; S120); separating clutch 13 (Kim, ¶0025; S130); operating engine 11 to allow HSG 16 to generate electric power; and operating the hybrid vehicle by drive motor 12 in EV mode (Kim, ¶¶0025–0026; S130–S150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Im reference and include features from the Kim reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility sought by Im while providing Kim's SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Regarding claim 14, Im discloses maintaining operation of the damaged engine in the preset limp-home mode following detection of bearing damage (Im, ¶¶0131–0144; Fig. 5, S150–S191).
However, Im does not explicitly state that “when the hybrid vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition in the first emergency operating operation, the HSG generates the electric power.”
On the other hand, Kim teaches selectively operating HSG 16 using engine 11 to generate electric power when a predetermined battery charging condition is satisfied (Kim, ¶¶0006, 0022–0024; Fig. 3, S110–S120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Im reference and include features from the Kim reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility sought by Im while providing Kim's SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im and Kim in further view of Jeong et al. (US 2013/0144473 A1, “Jeong”) with respect to claim 10.
Regarding claim 10, Im discloses detecting damage to the bearing installed in the engine and maintaining operation of the damaged engine in a preset limp-home mode (Im, ¶¶0131–0144; Fig. 5, S150–S191).
However, Im does not explicitly state that “when the engine is stopped due to the damage to the bearing, the controller controls the engine to not be started.”
On the other hand, Jeong teaches determining whether the engine has abnormally stopped, determining that the engine is out of order when the predetermined engine-stall condition is satisfied, and thereafter preventing the engine from restarting (Jeong, ¶¶0017, 0041–0047, 0058–0060; Fig. 3, S60–S70). Jeong further teaches preventing restart to avoid repeated restart attempts and unnecessary battery discharge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Im reference and include features from the Jeong reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would prevent repeated attempts to restart a damaged engine and avoiding unnecessary battery depletion.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Im.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses “an engine”; “a drive motor selectively connected to the engine by a clutch”; “a hybrid starter and generator (HSG) configured to start the engine or configured to be operated by the engine to generate electric power”; and a controller configured to control driving of the hybrid vehicle through engine 11, drive motor 12, clutch 13, HSG 16, battery 19 and the HCU (Kim, ¶¶0005–0006; Fig. 1). Kim further teaches determining whether charging is required according to SOC (Kim, ¶0023; Fig. 3, S110), controlling engine 11 and HSG 16 for generation (Kim, ¶¶0022–0024; S120), separating clutch 13 (Kim, ¶0025; S130), operating engine 11 to allow HSG 16 to generate electric power, and driving the hybrid vehicle by drive motor 12 (Kim, ¶¶0025–0026; S130–S150).
However, Kim does not explicitly state that, “when a damage to the bearing is detected, the controller maintains driving of the engine in a preset limp-home mode.”
On the other hand, Im teaches detecting and confirming damage to a bearing installed in the engine and, upon confirmation of the bearing damage, maintaining operation of the damaged engine in preset limp-home mode S191 while restricting engine operation to prevent progression of bearing damage and permit limited vehicle travel (Im, ¶¶0131–0144; Fig. 5, S150–S191).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Kim reference and include features from the Im reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility while providing SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses an emergency operating method of a hybrid vehicle including engine 11, drive motor 12, clutch 13, HSG 16 and battery 19 and further teaches SOC-responsive control including comparing SOC with a predetermined charging value, separating the clutch, operating the engine to allow the HSG to generate electric power, and operating the hybrid vehicle by the drive motor (Kim, ¶¶0005–0006, 0022–0026; Figs. 1 and 3).
However, Kim does not explicitly state “a bearing damage detection operation of detecting and confirming a damage to the bearing installed in the engine” and “an engine driving maintaining operation of maintaining driving of the engine in a preset limp-home mode.”
On the other hand, Im teaches “a bearing damage detection operation of detecting and confirming a damage to the bearing installed in the engine” and “an engine driving maintaining operation of maintaining driving of the engine in a preset limp-home mode” by detecting/confirming engine-bearing damage and thereafter performing limp-home mode S191 (Im, ¶¶0131–0144; Fig. 5, S150–S191).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Kim reference and include features from the Im reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility while providing SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses selectively operating HSG 16 using engine 11 to generate electric power when a predetermined battery charging condition is satisfied (Kim, ¶¶0006, 0022–0024; Fig. 3, S110–S120).
However, Kim does not explicitly state that “when the hybrid vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition in the first emergency operating operation, the HSG generates the electric power.”
On the other hand, Im teaches maintaining the damaged engine in the engine-operating limp-home state following confirmation of bearing damage (Im, ¶¶0141–0144; Fig. 5, S191).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Kim reference and include features from the Im reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility while providing SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Im in further in view of Shin et al. (US 9,026,285 B2, “Shin”).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses selectively controlling HSG 16 to generate electric power using engine 11 according to a battery charging condition (Kim, ¶¶0006, 0022–0026; Fig. 3, S110–S150).
However, Kim does not explicitly state that “while controlling the hybrid vehicle in the first emergency operating mode, when a current state is any one state among a state in which a gear shift stage of a transmission is a P stage, a state in which the gear shift stage of the transmission is an N stage, and a state in which the hybrid vehicle stops, the controller controls the HSG to generate electric power.”
On the other hand, Shin teaches HSG 209 connected to engine 201 and engine-driven HSG generation while the hybrid vehicle is stopped, together with SOC-dependent stopped-vehicle charging and transmission-state-dependent charging control (Shin, Fig. 1, S2–S4; cols. 5–7). The stopped-vehicle HSG generation corresponds to the expressly recited alternative “a state in which the hybrid vehicle stops.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify Kim's existing HSG generation control with a reasonable expectation of success, such that, “while controlling the hybrid vehicle in the first emergency operating mode,” when the vehicle is in “a state in which the hybrid vehicle stops, the controller controls the HSG to generate electric power,” as taught by Shin, because propulsion power is not required while the vehicle is stopped and engine output may instead be utilized for electrical generation.
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses selectively operating HSG 16 to generate electric power using engine 11 according to a predetermined battery charging condition (Kim, ¶¶0006, 0022–0024; Fig. 3, S110–S120).
However, Kim does not explicitly state that “in the first emergency operating operation, a condition in which the HSG generates the electric power is any one state among a state in which a gear shift stage of a transmission is a P stage, a state in which the gear shift stage of the transmission is an N stage, and a state in which the hybrid vehicle stops.”
On the other hand, Shin teaches engine-driven HSG generation while the hybrid vehicle is stopped and stopped-vehicle transmission-state-dependent charging control (Shin, Fig. 1, S2–S4; cols. 5–7). The stopped-vehicle HSG generation corresponds to the claimed alternative “a state in which the hybrid vehicle stops.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify Kim's existing HSG generation control with a reasonable expectation of success, such that, “while controlling the hybrid vehicle in the first emergency operating mode,” when the vehicle is in “a state in which the hybrid vehicle stops, the controller controls the HSG to generate electric power,” as taught by Shin, because propulsion power is not required while the vehicle is stopped and engine output may instead be utilized for electrical generation.
Claims 6-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Im in further view of Wakashiro et al. (US 6,166,517, “Wakashiro”).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses comparing battery SOC with a predetermined charging value and controlling the engine, HSG, clutch and drive motor according to the SOC-dependent charging determination (Kim, ¶¶0022–0026; Fig. 3, S110–S150).
However, Kim does not explicitly state that “after controlling the hybrid vehicle in the second emergency operating mode, the controller compares whether the SOC is greater than or equal to a third reference value which is preset to drive the hybrid vehicle using the drive motor then drive the hybrid vehicle again using the engine, and when the SOC is greater than or equal to the third reference value, the controller controls to execute the first emergency operating mode again.”
On the other hand, Wakashiro teaches comparing battery SOC with separate lower and upper SOC thresholds SOCLMTL and SOCLMTH, entering a changed SOC operating condition when SOC falls below the lower threshold and maintaining that operating condition until SOC subsequently recovers to the upper threshold (Wakashiro, Fig. 3, S102—S109; cols. 6-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify Kim's existing SOC-responsive control according to Wakashiro's separate lower and upper SOC thresholds with a reasonable expectation of success such that, after operation in the second emergency operating mode, “the controller compares whether the SOC is greater than or equal to a third reference value” and, when the recovery value is reached, “the controller controls to execute the first emergency operating mode again,” thereby providing hysteresis and preventing repeated switching between operating modes.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses controlling the hybrid vehicle according to the SOC-dependent determination and maintaining the battery-charging operating condition when charging remains required (Kim, ¶¶0022–0026; Fig. 3, S110–S150).
However, Kim does not explicitly state that “when the SOC is not greater than or equal to the third reference value, the controller controls to execute the second emergency operating mode.”
On the other hand, Wakashiro teaches maintaining the changed SOC operating condition while SOC remains below upper recovery threshold SOCLMTH and changing from that condition only when SOC reaches the upper threshold (Wakashiro, Fig. 3, S107–S109; cols. 7–8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify Kim's existing SOC-responsive control according to Wakashiro's separate lower and upper SOC thresholds with a reasonable expectation of success such that, after operation in the second emergency operating mode, “the controller compares whether the SOC is greater than or equal to a third reference value” and, when the recovery value is reached, “the controller controls to execute the first emergency operating mode again,” thereby providing hysteresis and preventing repeated switching between operating modes.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses SOC-responsive selection of the hybrid vehicle operating condition based upon predetermined SOC criteria (Kim, ¶¶0022–0023; Fig. 3, S110).
However, Kim does not explicitly state that “the third reference value is set to be greater than the first reference value.”
On the other hand, Wakashiro teaches setting upper SOC recovery threshold SOCLMTH greater than lower SOC threshold SOCLMTL, including disclosed examples in which the upper threshold is approximately 65–70% and the lower threshold approximately 56–57% (Wakashiro, Fig. 3, S102–S103; col. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify Kim's existing SOC-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success such that “the third reference value is set to be greater than the first reference value,” thereby providing hysteresis and preventing repeated transitions caused by minor SOC fluctuations around a single reference value.
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses an emergency operating method of a hybrid vehicle including an engine, drive motor, clutch, HSG and battery and teaches comparing SOC with a predetermined charging value and, when charging is required, separating the clutch, operating the engine to allow the HSG to generate electric power, and operating the hybrid vehicle by the drive motor (Kim, ¶¶0005–0006, 0022–0026; Figs. 1 and 3).
However, Kim does not explicitly state “a bearing damage detection operation of detecting and confirming a damage to the bearing installed in the engine” and “an engine driving maintaining operation of maintaining driving of the engine in a preset limp-home mode” nor “after the second emergency operating operation, a third SOC comparison operation of comparing whether the SOC is greater than or equal to a third reference value which is preset to drive the hybrid vehicle using the drive motor and then drive the hybrid vehicle using the engine again, wherein, when the SOC is greater than or equal to the third reference value in the third SOC comparison operation, the first emergency operating operation is performed again.”
On the other hand, Im teaches “a bearing damage detection operation of detecting and confirming a damage to the bearing installed in the engine” and “an engine driving maintaining operation of maintaining driving of the engine in a preset limp-home mode” by detecting/confirming bearing damage and thereafter performing limp-home mode S191 (Im, ¶¶0131–0144; Fig. 5, S150–S191).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Kim reference and include features from the Im reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modification would maintain the limited mobility while providing SOC-responsive battery management and charging.
Furthermore, Wakashiro teaches comparing SOC with separate lower and upper thresholds SOCLMTL and SOCLMTH, entering a changed SOC operating condition at the lower threshold and maintaining that operating condition until SOC recovers to the higher threshold (Wakashiro, Fig. 3, S102–S109; cols. 6-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify Kim's existing SOC-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success such that “the third reference value is set to be greater than the first reference value,” thereby providing hysteresis and preventing repeated transitions caused by minor SOC fluctuations around a single reference value.
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses comparing SOC with predetermined SOC criteria and controlling the hybrid vehicle according to the resulting SOC determination (Kim, ¶¶0022-0026; Fig. 3, S110-S150).
However, Kim does not explicitly state that “the third reference value is set to be greater than the first reference value.”
On the other hand, Wakashiro teaches setting upper recovery threshold SOCLMTH greater than lower threshold SOCLMTL, including exemplary upper and lower SOC values of approximately 65-70% and 56-57%, respectively (Wakashiro, Fig. 3, S102-S103; col. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify Kim's existing SOC-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success, thereby requiring sufficient SOC recovery before returning to the first emergency operating operation and preventing repeated switching between the first and second emergency operating operations.
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses maintaining its battery-charging operating condition while battery charging remains required according to SOC (Kim, ¶¶0022–0026; Fig. 3, S110–S150).
However, Kim does not explicitly state that “when the SOC is not greater than or equal to the third reference value in the third SOC comparison operation, the second emergency operating operation is performed.”
On the other hand, Wakashiro teaches maintaining the changed SOC operating condition while SOC remains below upper recovery threshold SOCLMTH and leaving that operating condition only when SOC reaches the upper recovery threshold (Wakashiro, Fig. 3, S107–S109; cols. 7–8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify Kim's existing SOC-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success, thereby requiring sufficient SOC recovery before returning to the first emergency operating operation and preventing repeated switching between the first and second emergency operating operations.
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses determining/monitoring SOC of battery 19 before performing the SOC comparison used to determine whether charging is required and before executing the corresponding engine/HSG/motor/clutch control (Kim, ¶¶0022–0023; Fig. 3, S110).
However, Kim does not explicitly state “an SOC monitoring start operation of starting monitoring of the SOC between the engine driving maintaining operation and the first SOC comparison operation.”
On the other hand, Im teaches the preceding “engine driving maintaining operation of maintaining driving of the engine in a preset limp-home mode” following detection of bearing damage (Im, ¶¶0131–0144; Fig. 5, S180–S191).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Kim reference by incorporating Im's engine-driving-maintaining limp-home operation with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kim's SOC necessarily must be monitored before the controller can perform the SOC comparison used to select the subsequent operating condition.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Im , Wakashiro, in further view of Jeong.
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses the emergency operating method including engine 11, drive motor 12, clutch 13, HSG 16 and battery 19 and SOC-dependent control of the engine, drive motor, clutch and HSG (Kim, ¶¶0005–0006, 0022–0026; Figs. 1 and 3).
However, Kim does not explicitly state after the bearing damage detection operation, an engine stall determination operation of determining whether the engine is stopped; and when it is determined that the engine is stopped, a starting prohibition operation of not starting the engine.
On the other hand, Jeong teaches determining whether an engine has abnormally stopped, determining that the engine is out of order based upon the engine-stall condition, and preventing the engine from restarting when the engine is determined to be out of order (Jeong, ¶¶0017, 0041–0047, 0058–0060; Fig. 3, S20–S70). Jeong teaches that preventing restart avoids repeated restart attempts and unnecessary battery discharge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Kim reference with features from the Jeong reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would permit continued limited operation following bearing damage, provide stable SOC-dependent transition between the emergency operating states, and prevent repeated attempts to restart a damaged/stalled engine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner . should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights