CTNF 19/219,213 CTNF 72168 DETAILED ACTION Status of the Application 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Status of the Claims This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 27, 2025. Claims 1 – 3 are pending and examined below. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Drawings The drawings are objected to because they include rectangular boxes without appropriate legends. For example, at least elements 10, 19, 21 and 50 need appropriate legends. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes in a circuit are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. See 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 1.84(o). Suitable descriptive legends are required by the examiner as necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible. See 37 CFR 1.84(o). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: 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 of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1 – 3 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 claim(s) 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. In lines 11 – 13 of claim 1, the phrase “a determination unit configured to determine whether the engine is in a driven state, the hybrid electric vehicle is in a stopped state, the automatic transmission is in a D range, and the lock-up clutch is in a released state” is grammatically and/or operatively unclear. (Emphasis added.) Is the claimed control device attempting to determine a single recited state or all recited states simultaneously? Using “and” as a coordinating conjunction indicates that the control device is attempting to determine all states simultaneously, which operatively is not possible, i.e. the claimed driven state, the automatic transmission in the D range (or driving mode/gear), and the lock-up clutch in a released state cannot exist simultaneously while the hybrid electric vehicle in a stopped state. Clarification is required. Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency. 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1 – 3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In lines 11 – 13 of claim 1, the phrase “a determination unit configured to determine whether the engine is in a driven state, the hybrid electric vehicle is in a stopped state, the automatic transmission is in a D range, and the lock-up clutch is in a released state” is grammatically and/or operatively unclear. (Emphasis added.) Is the claimed control device attempting to determine a single recited state or all recited states simultaneously? Using “and” as a coordinating conjunction indicates that the control device is attempting to determine all states simultaneously, which operatively is not possible, i.e. the claimed driven state, the automatic transmission in the D range (or driving mode/gear), and the lock-up clutch in a released state cannot exist simultaneously while the hybrid electric vehicle in a stopped state. Clarification is required. Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as being indefinite, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 1 – 3 are 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. Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the control device including: a determination unit configured to determine whether the engine is in a driven state, the hybrid electric vehicle is in a stopped state, the automatic transmission is in a D range, and the lock-up clutch is in a released state; a setting unit configured to, when affirmative determination is made by the determination unit, set a target idle speed that is a target rotation speed in an idle operation state of the engine to a higher value as requested charging power of the battery increases; and a control unit configured to, when the engine is in the idle operation state, control the engine to reduce an increase rate for increasing an engine speed toward the target idle speed as the engine speed increases, as required by claim 1. Conclusion Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123. In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow , 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe , 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda , 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard , 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck , 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby , 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962). 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent toapplicant's disclosure : U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0083854 A1 relates to a control system for controlling an engine and an electric traction motor of a vehicle, the control system comprising one or more controllers, wherein the control system is configured to: receive an indication of engine speed during engine idling; and control the electric traction motor to reduce a difference between the engine speed and an engine idle speed target. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Electronic Communications Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. /RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/219,213 Page 2 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/219,213 Page 3 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/219,213 Page 4 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/219,213 Page 5 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/219,213 Page 6 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/219,213 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/219,213 Page 8 Art Unit: 3666
Prosecution Insights