Patent Application 18549642 - METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A HYBRID POWERTRAIN AND - Rejection

Patent Application 18549642 - METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A HYBRID POWERTRAIN AND

Title: METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A HYBRID POWERTRAIN AND HYBRID POWERTRAIN OPERATING ACCORDING TO SUCH A METHOD

Application Information

• Invention Title: METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A HYBRID POWERTRAIN AND HYBRID POWERTRAIN OPERATING ACCORDING TO SUCH A METHOD
• Application Number: 18549642
• Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-09-08T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-09-08T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 701
• National Sub-Class: 022000
• Examiner Employee Number: 89778
• Art Unit: 3668
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 0

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0759370🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on September 08, 2023.  Claims 1-13 are pending.

Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.

Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “A hybrid powertrain for a vehicle … operating according to the method of claim 1.”  The examiner suggests positively reciting the method steps the powertrain executes so as to avoid any ambiguity.  Appropriate correction is required.

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.


Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.

In sum, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process and a machine. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.

Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of processing the first data and the second data, wherein said processing comprises calculating a distribution of torque between the internal combustion engine and the electrical machine as recited in independent claim 1 which is also incorporated into independent claim 11.
The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.  That is, an engineer could conduct said processing with the acquired data to calculate the distribution of torque.  This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.’’).

Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “acquiring first data comprising data representative of an efficiency of the internal combustion engine, representative of an efficiency of the electrical machine, and representative of an efficiency of the transmission, and acquiring second data representative of vehicle operating conditions” are also insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).

Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: “hybrid powertrain for a vehicle”; “internal combustion engine”; “electrical machine”; “crankshaft”; “transmission” and “”control unit” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, ¶¶ 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment 

As for dependent claims 2-10 and 12-13, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea.  The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.  Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.

Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.  The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 2 recites “wherein the transmission comprises an endless flexible transmission element”.  The specification is silent as to an endless flexible transmission.  The specification does recite that the transmission could be a chain and/or a belt.  (Specification, page 2 lines 11-12)  The examiner contends that this is not the same as an endless flexible transmission and not supported by the specification.

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.


Claim 4 recites the limitation "the belt" in line 3.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.

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) 1-3, 5-6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ibaraki et al., EP 0759370 B1.

Regarding claim 1, Ibaraki teaches a method for controlling a hybrid powertrain (1) for a vehicle comprising an internal combustion engine (2), an electrical machine (3) connected to a crankshaft (7) of the internal combustion engine (2) via a transmission (5), and a control unit (17), (Ibaraki, see at least ¶ [0009] and Fig. 1) the method comprising:
acquiring first data comprising data representative of an efficiency of the internal combustion engine, representative of an efficiency of the electrical machine, and representative of an efficiency of the transmission, ), (Ibaraki, see at least ¶ [0032] “In the ELECTRICITY GENERATING DRIVE mode in which the vehicle is run by the engine 12 while the motor 14 is operated by the surplus power (PICE - PL) of the engine 12 to charge the electric energy storage device 22, the engine output PICE is determined so as to maximize the overall fuel consumption efficiency ηT which reflects the energy conversion efficiencies ηGEN and ηBIN of the motor 14 and device 22, that is, to minimize the ratio of the fuel consumption amount Mfc to the output or power of the motor 14 during operation of the motor 14 by the electric energy which has been stored in the device 22 by the surplus power (PICE - PL). The motor 14 is operated by the electricity generating power PGEN which corresponds to the surplus power (PICE - PL), which in turn is equal to the determined engine output PICE minus the required drive power PL. Since the ratio of the fuel consumption amount Mfc to the output of the motor 14 during operation of the motor 14 by the electric energy stored in the device 22 by the surplus power (PICE - PL) is reduced to a minimum, the fuel consumption amount Mfc per unit amount of electric energy to be stored in the device 22 is accordingly minimized, leading to maximum efficiency of charging of the device 22.” and ¶ [0034] “Where the transmission 16 is capable of changing the speed ration in steps or continuously, however, the power transmission efficiency of the transmission 16 varies with the speed ratio, and the fuel consumption amounts Mfce, Mfcm and the overall fuel consumption efficiency ηT vary with the speed ratio and power transmission efficiency of the transmission 16. In the light of this fact, it is desirable to obtain those values Mfce, Mfcm, ηT according to the following equations (4), (5) and (6), which include power transmission efficiency ηCVT of the transmission 16 where the transmission 16 is a continuously variable transmission. The power transmission efficiency ηCVT is obtained on the basis of appropriate parameters such as the speed ratio, transmission torque and input and output speeds of the transmission 16, and according to a predetermined relationship of the efficiency hCVT and those parameters, which relationship is represented by a data map stored in the memory means 36, together with other data (e.g., equations) necessary to calculate the power transmission efficiency ηCVT. Mfce = Fce x PL/ηCVT Mfcm = Fcm x PL/(ηGEN x ηBIN x ηBOUT x ηMOT x ηCVT) ηT = ηGEN x ηBIN x ηBOUT x ηMOT x ηCVT* x ηICE + (PL/PICE) x ηICE x {1 - (hGEN x ηBIN x ηBOUT x ηMOT x ηCVT* x ηCV4T*)/ηCVT}”)
acquiring second data representative of vehicle operating conditions, ), (Ibaraki, see at least ¶ [0035] “As described above, the power transmission efficiency ηCVT in the above equations (4), (5) and (6) is obtained on the basis of the current running condition of the vehicle such as the transmission torque and speed ration of the transmission 16 which correspond to the required drive power PL, and according to the data map stored in the memory means 36. Like the discharging efficiency ηBOUT and the motor driving efficiency ηMOT, the power transmission efficiency ηCVT* in the above equation (6) is an average (e.g., moving average) of the values stored in the memory means 36 in the previous vehicle runs in the MOTOR DRIVE mode, or a value stored in the memory means 36 in the last vehicle run in the MOTOR DRIVE mode.”) and 
processing the first data and the second data, wherein said processing comprises calculating a distribution of torque between the internal combustion engine and the electrical machine. ), (Ibaraki, see at least ¶ [0047] “As described above, the power transmission efficiency ηCVT in the above equations (4), (5) and (6) is obtained on the basis of the current running condition of the vehicle such as the transmission torque and speed ration of the transmission 16 which correspond to the required drive power PL, and according to the data map stored in the memory means 36. Like the discharging efficiency ηBOUT and the motor driving efficiency ηMOT, the power transmission efficiency ηCVT* in the above equation (6) is an average (e.g., moving average) of the values stored in the memory means 36 in the previous vehicle runs in the MOTOR DRIVE mode, or a value stored in the memory means 36 in the last vehicle run in the MOTOR DRIVE mode.”)

Claim 2 discloses the claimed invention except the transmission is an endless flexible transmissional element.  It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to substitute the transmission as an endless flexible transmissional element, since applicant has not disclosed that the endless flexible transmissional element any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with another transmission.

Regarding claim 3, Ibaraki teaches a method for controlling a hybrid powertrain wherein the first data representative of the efficiency of the transmission is extracted from a map stored in the control unit. (Ibaraki, see at least ¶ [0047])

Regarding claim 5, Ibaraki teaches a method for controlling a hybrid powertrain, wherein the first data representing the transmission efficiency is calculated using a mathematical model.  (Ibaraki, see at least ¶ [0035])

Regarding claim 6, Ibaraki teaches a method for controlling a hybrid powertrain, wherein the processing operates according to a strategy of minimizing the equivalent instantaneous consumption defined by the actual fuel consumption of the internal combustion engine and by the equivalent fuel consumption corresponding to the electrical machine power. (Ibaraki, see at least ¶ [0035] and [0047])



Claim 11 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 1 above.

Claim 12 discloses the claimed invention except the transmission is an accessory device.  It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to substitute the transmission as an accessory device, since applicant has not disclosed that the accessory device solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with another transmission.

Claim 13 discloses the claimed invention except the electrical machine is downstream of the internal combustion engine.  It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to substitute the location of the electrical machine, since applicant has not disclosed that the location of the electrical machine solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with another electrical machine location such as P0.

Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.

/BRIAN P SWEENEY/               Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668