DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated 7/9/2026. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see pages 7-10 of 11, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to 103 rejections of record have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 12-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…group acceleration patterns…based on acceleration patterns…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…group acceleration patterns…based on the acceleration patterns…” or the like, so as to prevent potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…a vehicle…the vehicle…a plurality of vehicles…the plurality of vehicles…the vehicles…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a vehicle…the vehicle…a plurality of vehicles…the plurality of vehicles…the plurality of vehicles…” or the like, so as to prevent potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…determine high-output tolerance…the high-output tolerance…the high-output tolerances…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…determine a high-output tolerance…the high-output tolerance…the high-output tolerance of each group…” or the like, so as to prevent potential misinterpretation.
Claim 3 as currently presented states “…a predetermined layer cloud server…the predetermined layer…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a predetermined layer cloud server…the predetermined layer cloud server…” or the like, so as to prevent potential misinterpretation.
Claim 15 is also objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 4 as currently presented states “…the state of charge (SOC) value of the battery…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…the state of charge (SOC) of the battery…” so as to align with “…a state of charge (SOC) of the battery…” of independent claim 1 and prevent potential misinterpretation.
Claim 16 is also objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 7 as currently presented states “…high-output tolerances…the high-output tolerance…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…high-output tolerances…the high-output tolerances…” or the like, so as to prevent potential misinterpretation.
Claim 12 as currently presented states “…the propulsion acceleration or the overtaking acceleration…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…the propulsion acceleration pattern or the overtaking acceleration pattern…” so as to align with “…a propulsion acceleration pattern or an overtaking acceleration pattern…” of independent claim 7 and prevent potential misinterpretation.
Claims 13-14 are also objected to for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim as currently presented states “…group acceleration patterns…group the plurality of vehicles…each grouped group…” which is indefinite due to seemingly redundant terminology; additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim describes (i) the grouping of acceleration patterns according to propulsion acceleration patterns, (ii) grouping of acceleration patterns according to overtaking acceleration patterns; the claim also describes grouping of the plurality of vehicles according to acceleration patterns, i.e., the plurality as a whole or each of the individual vehicles according to either propulsion or overtaking.
It appears the recitation of “…each grouped group…” (lacking sufficient antecedent basis) may intend to refer to a collection of vehicles that has been categorized as possessing either propulsion acceleration patterns or overtaking acceleration patterns, to which the Examiner recommends updating to reflect, if that is indeed the intent.
Regarding claim 7, the claim as currently presented states “…respective groups for each group which is grouped…” which is indefinite for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Claims 3-6, 8, and 10-18 are also rejected since the claims are dependent on a previously rejected claim.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Convincing arguments have been provided by the Applicant resulting in an updated search by the Examiner, providing no references that disclose or teach the content of claim 1 or analogous claim 7.
Claim 1 and analogous claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Primary reference Ostrowski discloses a vehicle capable of establishing acceleration patterns according to other vehicles, grouping vehicles of similar acceleration patterns, and adjusting the vehicle’s battery output according to groupings.
The Rosenbaum reference teaches a distinction between acceleration patterns observable by a vehicle, categorizing behaviors as either propulsive acceleration or overtaking acceleration.
The Geller reference teaches qualitative factors corresponding to vehicle operation such as battery power level, temperature, and state of charge, however there is no indication that “…a time at which the maximum power is maintained…” is taught or suggested in Geller.
Nguyen (US-2018/0244161) teaches a hybrid electric vehicle capable of adjusting battery output during acceleration (see Nguyen at least [0070] “In some embodiments, during acceleration, the current or battery power used by the electric drive can be limited to 0% (meaning no battery power used during acceleration), between 0 to 100%, 100% (meaning current or battery power used during acceleration is the same as the current or battery power used during the vehicle cruising time), 150%, 200%, 250%, 300%, 350%, 400%, 500%, or higher, than the current or battery power used during the vehicle cruising time to achieve a desired range...”). While these teachings could be used to modify the vehicle as disclosed by Ostrowski, there would still be no explicit teaching of a time that is monitored during the period of battery preservation.
While the aforementioned references disclose elements of the invention, the references do not fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights