DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the originally filed application papers. Claims filed on 11/10/2025 are being examined. Claims 1-15 are being considered and further pending 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 11/10/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to contain any labeling resulting in drawings of meaningless block diagrams. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 15 is directed to computer readable instructions.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanishima (EP 1859982 A2) cited in the IDS henceforth referred to as Tanishima.
Regarding Claim 1 Tanishima teaches A control system for controlling a hybrid powertrain system of a vehicle, the hybrid powertrain system being operable in a plurality of powertrain operating modes each having an associated set of powertrain control parameter values, the hybrid powertrain system comprising an engine and an electric traction motor, the control system comprising one or more controllers collectively configured to (para [0001] : “The invention relates in general to shift control and particularly, but not exclusively, to shift control in a hybrid vehicle capable of running with power from a motor generator in addition to an engine. Aspects of the invention relate to an apparatus, to a device to a method and to a vehicle.”):
determine that the hybrid powertrain system is simultaneously operating in two or more of the plurality of powertrain operating modes (para [0087] : “In this embodiment, as shown in FIG. 11, a boundary line γ extends from the initial operating point "A" when the accelerator opening starts to increase and is defined by a gradient dependent on vehicle operating information. The vehicle operating information includes vehicle speed VSP, vehicle acceleration ΔVSP as the rate of change of vehicle speed VSP with respect time, accelerator opening APO indicative of requested engine load and accelerator operational speed ΔAPO as the rate of change of accelerator opening APO with respect to time.”, para [0088] : “Boundary line γ is between one region that puts weight on shock control and another region that puts weight on response time. More specifically, boundary line γ indicates a boundary (combination of vehicle speed VSP and accelerator opening APO) between a shock-control region and a response-time region. In the shock-control region, minimizing shock and unintended driving force drop are higher priority than the response time of mode shifting and gear shifting. In the response-time region, improving the response time for mode shifting and gear shifting is a higher priority than minimizing shock and unintended driving force drop. The shock-control region falls on the side of boundary line γ depicting higher speed and lower accelerator opening. The response-time region falls on the side of boundary line γ depicting lower speed and higher accelerator opening.”, Fig. 11);
determine, based on a predetermined prioritisation index of the plurality of powertrain operating modes, which of the two or more simultaneously operating powertrain operating modes has a highest priority (para [0037] : “Accordingly, embodiments of the invention may provide at least two driving power transmission state shifts including a mode shift and a gear shift performed in timing according to vehicle operating information. It is thus possible to satisfy the conflicting requests, i.e., the request for solving the problems as to shock and unintended driving force drop, and the request for improving the response of mode shift and gear shift. During vehicle operating states in which it is suitable to solve with higher priority the problems as to shock and unintended driving force drop than the response of start or stop of the engine (mode shift), the start or stop of the engine (mode shift) and the gear shift are performed in turn. During vehicle operating states in which it is suitable to prioritize more highly the response of start or stop of the engine (mode shift) than the problems as to shock and unintended driving force drop, the start or stop of the engine (mode shift) and the gear shift are performed in parallel.”, Fig. 11); and
control at least one of the engine and electric traction motor via the one or more controllers based on the set of powertrain control parameter values associated with the highest priority powertrain operating mode (para [0091] : “Considering the case of soft accelerator operation (that is, slow or "soft" operation of the accelerator pedal) illustrated in FIG. 9, showing a shift from operating points "A" to "B", the EV-to-HEV mode shift is first performed at an operating point "D" as shown in FIG. 11. After that, the fifth-to-fourth downshift is performed at operating point "B" lying on the modified shift line δ. The fifth-to-fourth downshift is performed after the EV-to-HEV mode shift. Accordingly, shock and unintended driving force drop are minimized.”, claim 1, Fig. 1, Fig. 9F-H,).
Regarding Claim 2 Tanishima teaches The control system of claim 1, further Tanishima teaches wherein the control system is configured to control at least one of a speed of the electric traction motor and a speed of the engine, in accordance with the set of powertrain control parameter values associated with the highest priority powertrain operating mode (para [0097] : “FIG. 9 also illustrates a target rotational speed of motor-generator 5 tNm, an actual value thereof (motor-generator rotational speed) Nm, engine rotational speed Ne of engine 1, transmission input rotational speed Ni of automatic transmission 3, engine torque Te of engine 1, motor-generator torque Tm of motor-generator 5 and the transmission output torque.”, Fig. 9F).
Regarding Claim 3 Tanishima teaches The control system of claim 2, further Tanishima teaches wherein the control system is configured to:
receive a target speed request (para [0097] : “FIG. 9 also illustrates a target rotational speed of motor-generator 5 tNm, an actual value thereof (motor-generator rotational speed) Nm, engine rotational speed Ne of engine 1, transmission input rotational speed Ni of automatic transmission 3, engine torque Te of engine 1, motor-generator torque Tm of motor-generator 5 and the transmission output torque.”);
compare the target speed request to at least one of the speed of the electric traction motor or the speed of the engine; and, if a speed difference between the target speed request and the speed of the electric traction motor and/or the engine is detected (para [0100] : “Time t3 is a predetermined time interval TM1 after the time t2 when the shift from EV-to-HEV mode is requested. At time t3 the rotational speed of motor-generator 5 is raised to start the engine 1. Specifically, the target motor-generator rotational speed tNm is increased to the determined value for engine start-up, and motor-generator torque Tm is increased, thereby increasing the motor-generator rotational speed Nm to the target motor-generator rotational speed tNm. As a result, the second clutch 7 starts to slip due to the increase in motor-generator torque Tm because torque capacity Tc2 of high-and-low-reverse clutch H&LR/C (second clutch 7) corresponds to the target transmission output torque.”,);
modify the speed of the electric traction motor and/or the engine, in accordance with the set of powertrain control parameter values associated with the highest priority powertrain operating mode, to reduce the speed difference (para [0107] : “After the first clutch 6 is engaged completely, as indicated by "judged as engaged completely" in FIG. 9, time t7 occurs when both the value of tTc2-Tm exceeds a predetermined value and the engine torque Te is stable. At time t7 the target rotational speed tNm of motor-generator 5 is raised to a target after-gearshift rotational speed with a predetermined time constant as indicated by a broken line. Motor-generator torque Tm is controlled so that the motor-generator rotational speed Nm follows the target motor-generator rotational speed tNm. Engagement of first clutch 6 is judged to be complete when one of the following two conditions is satisfied: (1) the torque capacity Tc1 reaches a predetermined value, or (2) a predetermined time interval TM2 has elapsed after time t6. Torque capacity Tc1 may be estimated on the basis of the stroke of first clutch 6.”, Fig. 9F : “tNm, Nm”).
Regarding Claim 5 Tanishima teaches The control system of claim 1, further Tanishima teaches wherein the set of powertrain control parameter values comprise one or more of: an inertia compensation parameter for speed control of the engine and/or electric traction motor, an operating temperature factor parameter, a safety monitoring parameter (para [0015] : “In an embodiment, the controller is operable to conclude the vehicle information indicates the desire to perform the two driving power transmission state shifts slowly below the first predetermined speed when a value related to the vehicle speed is higher than a first speed value and when a value related to the engine load is smaller than a first load value.”, where this constitutes at least a safety monitoring parameter as broadly claimed.).
Regarding Claim 9 Tanishima teaches A system comprising the control system of claim 1 further Tanishima teaches and a hybrid powertrain system of a vehicle, the hybrid powertrain system comprising an engine and an electric traction motor (para [0001] : “The invention relates in general to shift control and particularly, but not exclusively, to shift control in a hybrid vehicle capable of running with power from a motor generator in addition to an engine. Aspects of the invention relate to an apparatus, to a device to a method and to a vehicle.”).
Regarding Claim 10 Tanishima teaches A vehicle comprising the control system of claim 1 (para [0001] : “The invention relates in general to shift control and particularly, but not exclusively, to shift control in a hybrid vehicle capable of running with power from a motor generator in addition to an engine. Aspects of the invention relate to an apparatus, to a device to a method and to a vehicle.”).
Regarding Claim 11, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 12, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 2 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 13, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites computer readable instructions with limitations substantially the same as claim 11 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanishima and further in view of "A plain-English description of PID (Proportional Integral Derivative) control" (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/nvrc7r/a_plainenglish_description_of_pid_proportional/) henceforth referred to as PID.
Regarding Claim 6 Tanishima teaches The control system of claim 1, however Tanishima does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more controllers comprise a proportional integral derivative (PID) controller, and the set of powertrain control parameter values comprises a gain selection parameter comprising one or more of: a proportional gain parameter, an integral gain parameter, and a derivative gain parameter for controlling the PID controller.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (control theory), PID teaches wherein the one or more controllers comprise a proportional integral derivative (PID) controller, and the set of powertrain control parameter values comprises a gain selection parameter comprising one or more of: a proportional gain parameter, an integral gain parameter, and a derivative gain parameter for controlling the PID controller ( “I came across a description of PID control that I found helpful, and I wanted to share it with everyone, in case anyone else finds this helpful.
Here's a plain-English description of what the P, I, and D in PID control theory stand for:
P: the further you are from where you want to be, the harder you should try to get there.
I: the longer you haven’t been where you want to be, the harder you should try to get there.
D: if you’re quickly getting close to where you want to be, slow down.
In PID control, each of these methods of correction would have its influence be scaled by a parameter that you can tune to optimize the control.
Controlling with P alone can lead to oscillations around your set point. D helps counteract that by slowing down as you get close to the set point so you don't overshoot.
Controlling with P alone can lead to equilibrium at some point that is close to but not quite at the set point, without enough of a correcting force to actually hit the set point. I corrects for that.
”, where use of a PID controller in combination of Tanishima would teach control of the powertrain control parameters with a PID controller.).
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 Tanishima with the PID controller of PID as a well-known and well understood control method to control the settling time, overshoot, and steady state error of the control system for the powertrain parameters.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanishima and further in view of "Look-up Tables" (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/digital/chpt-16/look-up-tables accessed via Wayback machine, archived 06/08/2015) henceforth referred to as Tables.
Regarding Claim 7 Tanishima teaches The control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers determine the powertrain is simultaneously operating under two or more powertrain operating modes by:
receiving data relating to one or more vehicle attributes (para [0086] : “FIG. 11 illustrates a shift line α for a down shift from fifth-to-fourth gears and a boundary line β for the EV-to-HEV mode shift. In FIG. 11, each operating point represents a combination of vehicle speed VSP and accelerator opening APO.”); and
determining two or more powertrain operating modes (para [0088] : “Boundary line γ is between one region that puts weight on shock control and another region that puts weight on response time. More specifically, boundary line γ indicates a boundary (combination of vehicle speed VSP and accelerator opening APO) between a shock-control region and a response-time region.”). However, Tanishima does not explicitly teach comparing the received data to a look-up table defining attributes of the plurality of powertrain operating modes.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (computing techniques), Tables teaches comparing the received data to a look-up table defining attributes of the plurality of powertrain operating modes (para 4 : “It is vitally important to recognize the significance of this principle as applied to digital circuitry. Whereas the half-adder built from gates or relays processes the input bits to arrive at a specific output, the ROM simply remembers what the outputs should be for any given combination of inputs.”, para 5 : “Such a simple application, with definite outputs for every input, is called a look-up table, because the memory device simply “looks up” what the output(s) should to be for any given combination of inputs states.”, using a LUT along with the input/outputs defined in the determination of Tanishima would teach using LUTs to compare the data defining the attributes of the plurality of the powertrain operating modes.).
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 Tanishima with the LUTs of Table to increase the speed and efficiency of the determination of Tanishima.
Regarding Claim 8 the combination of Tanishima and Tables teaches The control system of claim 7, further Tanishima teaches wherein the one or more vehicle attributes comprise one or more of: a speed of the vehicle, a speed of the engine, a speed of the electric traction motor, a target speed of the engine, a target speed of the electric traction motor, a clutch position, a gear selection, a gear change, and driver demand (para [0087] : “In this embodiment, as shown in FIG. 11, a boundary line γ extends from the initial operating point "A" when the accelerator opening starts to increase and is defined by a gradient dependent on vehicle operating information. The vehicle operating information includes vehicle speed VSP, vehicle acceleration ΔVSP as the rate of change of vehicle speed VSP with respect time, accelerator opening APO indicative of requested engine load and accelerator operational speed ΔAPO as the rate of change of accelerator opening APO with respect to time.”, Fig. 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 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.
Yang et al (US 20100286855 A1) teaches a motor torque management method of hybrid vehicles. The method includes torque synthesis and limitation in electric driving mode, torque synthesis and limitation in electricity generating mode, and torque arbitrating management. Wherein, the torque arbitrating management arbitrates torque according to its priority, and sends the torque request with the highest priority to a motor controller (5).
Tanishima et al (US 20130231815 A1) teaches a hybrid vehicle control device is provided with an engine, a motor and a mode switch section, an automatic transmission and a controller. The controller outputs the gear shift command prior to an engine start command when a simultaneous output prediction condition is met that predicts the output of a gear shift request and a start request at the same time. In this way, the generation of a large shock by the entering of the engine start in the start prohibiting region during the gear shift is prevented.
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
