DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to application 19/257,846 filed on July 2, 2025.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claims 2-4 (similar to claims 6-8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See suggestion in Suggestions for Applicant below.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitations of claims 3-4 and 7-8 are not in the specification. It can be shown, however, that these claimed limitations were in the original claims 3, 7, 4 and 8 of the original claims of US 17/955,662. Therefore, the addition of these limitations within the specification would not be new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, on line 9, “the first motor according” should be replaced with “the torque of the first motor according.” This would clarify that the controlling of the first motor is referencing the torque control step of claim 1.
In claim 5, on line 10, “a first motor” should be replaced with “the first motor”. On line 11, “a second motor” should be replaced with “the second motor.” Appropriate correction is required. These limitations were already introduced on lines 3 and 4, respectively.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,371,001. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: see the claims.
Claims 2-4 depend upon claim 1. Claims 6-8 depend upon claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
In the specification, on page 19, applicant states the following:
Meanwhile, in step S520, the HCU 340 can compare the difference in angular acceleration between the first motor 220 and the second motor 240 instead of comparing the difference in speed between the first motor 220 and the second motor 240.
It can be shown that the claimed limitations of claims 1-8 are a hybrid embodiment, as the angular acceleration comparison (claims 2-4 and 6-8) can be performed instead of the speed comparison (claims 1 and 5).
See suggestion in Suggestions for Applicant below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deguchi (US 6083139). With regard to claim 1, Deguchi teaches a method of controlling a hybrid electric vehicle, the method comprising: determining, by a controller, whether the hybrid electric vehicle enters an engine clutch lock-up section S2; determining, by the controller based on the hybrid electric vehicle entering the engine clutch lock-up section, whether difference in speed between a first motor and a second motor is above a predetermined threshold S16 (Ne=Nm1; Na=Nm4; Ne-Na > 0); and controlling, by the controller based on the difference in speed being above the predetermined threshold, a torque of the first motor according to a comparison result obtained from comparing the speed of the first motor to the speed of the second motor S18. With regard to claim 5, Deguchi teaches a hybrid electric vehicle comprising: an engine 2; a first motor 1 directly connected to the engine; a second motor 4 configured to be connected to the first motor in a specific driving mode that uses driving force of the engine; an engine clutch 3 configured to selectively connect the engine to the second motor; and a controller configured to determine whether the hybrid electric vehicle enters an engine clutch lock-up section S2, determine whether difference in speed between the first motor and the second motor is above a predetermined threshold in a case where the hybrid electric vehicle enters the engine clutch lock-up section S16 (Ne=Nm1; Na = Nm4; Ne – Na > 0), and control a torque of the first motor according to a comparison result obtained from comparing speeds of the first motor and the second motor with each other S18.
Suggestions for Applicant
It is suggested applicant amend the Specification to include the limitations of claims 3-4. This can be done by inserting these controls on page 19 after the introduction of a control based on angular acceleration.
It is suggested applicant include a new figure similar to Figure 5, but with the angular acceleration control variant. Essentially, S520 would reflect claim 2, S530 would reflect claim 3 and S550 would reflection claim 4. Should applicant include a new figure, applicant should also amend the specification to include this figure in the Brief Description of The Drawings section as well as in the body of the specification itself (page 19).
The following amendments to the claims are suggested to overcome the hybrid embodiment issues, double patenting issues as well as the cited prior art.
Claim 1. A method of controlling a hybrid electric vehicle, the method comprising: determining, by a controller, whether the hybrid electric vehicle enters an engine clutch lock-up section; determining, by the controller based on the hybrid electric vehicle entering the engine clutch lock-up section, whether a difference in angular acceleration between a first motor and a second motor is above a predetermined threshold; and controlling, by the controller based on the difference in angular acceleration being above the predetermined threshold, a torque of the first motor according to a comparison result obtained from comparing the angular acceleration of the first motor to the angular acceleration of the second motor.
Cancel claim 2.
Claim 3. The method of claim [2] 1, wherein the controlling of the torque of the first motor according to the comparison result comprises: increasing the torque of the first motor based on the angular acceleration of the first motor being lower than the angular acceleration of the second motor.
Claim 4. The method of claim [2] 1, wherein the controlling of the torque of the first motor according to the comparison result comprises: decreasing the torque of the first motor based on the angular acceleration of the first motor being higher than the angular acceleration of the second motor.
Claim 5. A hybrid electric vehicle comprising: an engine; a first motor directly connected to the engine; a second motor configured to be connected to the first motor in a specific driving mode that uses driving force of the engine; an engine clutch configured to selectively connect the engine to the second motor; and a controller configured to determine whether the hybrid electric vehicle enters an engine clutch lock-up section, determine whether a difference in angular acceleration between [a] the first motor and [a] the second motor is above a predetermined threshold in a case where the hybrid electric vehicle enters the engine clutch lock-up section, and control a torque of the first motor according to a comparison result obtained from comparing angular accelerations of the first motor and the second motor with each other.
Cancel claim 6.
Claim 7. The hybrid electric vehicle of claim [6] 5, wherein the controller is configured to increase the torque of the first motor in a case where the angular acceleration of the first motor is lower than the angular acceleration of the second motor.
Claim 8. The hybrid electric vehicle of claim [6] 5, wherein the controller is configured to decrease the torque of the first motor in a case where the angular acceleration of the first motor is higher than the angular acceleration of the second motor.
Should applicant amend the specification, drawings and claims as suggested, the application would be in condition for allowance. The double patenting rejection would also be overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim ‘595 has been cited to show a similar method comprising: an engine 20, a first motor 10, a second motor 40, a clutch 30, wherein if the difference in angular acceleration between the engine and first motor is greater than a threshold S20, an engine torque is reduced S250.
Choi ‘869 has been cited to show a similar method comprising: an engine 110, a first motor 120, a second motor 140, a clutch 130, wherein in response to an engine clutch lock-up S100, if the difference between a target angular acceleration of the first motor and the actual angular acceleration of the first motor is greater than a threshold S310, a torque of the first motor is increased S330.
Jo ‘466 has been cited to show a similar method comprising: an engine 110, a first motor 120, a second motor 140, a clutch 130, wherein in response to an engine clutch lock-up S100, if the difference between a target angular acceleration of the first motor and the actual angular acceleration of the first motor is greater than a threshold S300, a torque of the first motor is controlled S620.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
December 31, 2025