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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 1/12/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the
Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Ienaga (US 20180276906 A1), Saito (US 20190097453 A1), and Li (US 20150231982 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Ienaga, Saito, and Li does not explicitly teach wherein the respective reference value for the operating point for each of the multiple electrical branch lines of the electrical system is adapted over time according to an age of the multiple components powered by the respective electrical branch line. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fisher (US 20200119544 A1) and Ienaga (US 20180276906 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 12 and 13 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.
It is unclear what claims 12 and 13 are meant to depend on since claims 11 and 2 have been canceled. If they are meant to depend on any of the remaining claims it will create further dependency issues, antecedence issues, or duplicate claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 depends upon claim 11 which is cancelled. Claim 13 depends upon claim 2 which was canceled. For the purposes of examination claims 12 and 13 will be viewed as being dependent upon claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 20200119544 A1) as modified by Ienaga (US 20180276906 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8,
Fisher teaches,
detecting electrical state data of an electrical system of the at least one motor vehicle by a power distribution unit in the at least one motor vehicle; (Para. [0020] teaches “a power distribution unit (PDU) electrically interposed between the power storage device and the electrical load, wherein the PDU may include a breaker/relay positioned on one of a high side and a low side of the power storage device;” Para. [0313] teaches “For example, the PDU 102 may include sensors such as voltage and/or current sensors on the main power, and the current source 220 provides an electrical connection to a power source (which may be an external power source and/or sourced through the controller) in a manner configured to inject the desired current to the main power.”)
wherein the power distribution unit distributes power from a battery to multiple electrical branch lines of the electrical system that are each protected by a respective electrical semiconductor fuse and each power multiple components, (Para. [0306] teaches “The power source 104 may be any type—including at least a battery, generator, and/or capacitor. The power source 104 may include multiple sources or lines of power, which may be distributed according to the type of power (e.g., a battery input separated from a generator input) and/or may be distributed according to the devices powered (e.g., auxiliary and/or accessory power separated from main load power such as motive force power, and/or divisions within the accessories, divisions within the motive force power, etc.). The load 106 may be any type, including one or more motive force loads (e.g., to individual drive wheel motors, to a global motive drive motor, etc.), one or more accessories (e.g., on-vehicle accessories such as steering, fan, lights, cab power, etc.)” Para. [0314] teaches “The example PDU 102 includes the main fuse 222 and the auxiliary fuses 224. The main fuse 222 or fuses are associated with the main power, and the auxiliary fuses 224 are associated with the auxiliary power. In certain embodiments, the fuses are thermal fuses, such as resistive devices that exhibit heating, and are intended to fail if a given current profile is exceeded in the associated power line.” Fig. 2 shows that each of the branch lines 202,210,212, and 204 are connected to the fuses 222 and 224.)
and wherein the electrical state data comprises an electrical current operating point, including an electrical current and a voltage, for each of the multiple electrical branch lines; (Para. [0406] teaches “An example system includes a motive current sensor 4824 electrically coupled to the motive electrical power path 4804, where the motive current sensor 4824 is configured to provide the motive current value. An example system includes at least one auxiliary current sensor 4826 each electrically coupled to one of the at least one auxiliary electrical power paths, each auxiliary current sensor 4826 configured to provide the corresponding auxiliary current value.” Para. [0406] further teaches “one or more of the motive current value and/or the auxiliary current value(s) are provided by a fuse current model, for example determined in accordance with a load voltage drop across the fuse and/or a fuse resistance (and/or fuse dynamic resistance or fuse impedance) value determined from an injected current operation across the fuse.”)
comparing, the transmitted electrical state data with at least one reference value for the operating point for each of the multiple electrical branch lines of the electrical system, is adapted over time according to an age of the multiple components powered by the respective electrical branch line. (Para. [0334] teaches “The illustrative data 2000 includes a threshold value 2002—for example a current, temperature, index parameter, or other value at which component wear and/or system failure is expected to occur, and utilized as a threshold by the current event determination circuit 1902—at least under certain operating conditions at a point in time for the system. It is understood that the current event determination circuit 1902 may utilize multiple thresholds, and/or dynamic thresholds, as described throughout the present disclosure” (i.e. thresholds are viewed as references) Para. [0335] teaches “The component for the wear threshold value may be a fuse (e.g., the fuse is experiencing or expected to experience a current event that will cause mechanical stress, thermal stress, or high usage of the fuse life), a component in the system (e.g., a contactor, a cable, a switch, a battery cell, etc.), and/or a defined threshold value that is nominally determined (e.g., calibration for a value that is expected to be relevant to possible component damage, without being necessarily tied to a specific component). In certain embodiments, the wear threshold value and/or the system failure value are compensated for the age or wear state of the system or a component in the system (e.g., thresholds are reduced, and/or responses are increased, as the system ages).” (i.e. thresholds are adapted based on ages of the components.) Para. [0363] teaches “In certain embodiments, the operation to determine that the current event is exceeding the wear threshold value and/or the fuse failure value includes or is adjusted based upon one or more of: 6) information from a battery management system (e.g., voltage, current, state of charge, state of health, rate of change of any of these, which parameters may affect current values, expected current values, and/or dynamic response of current values, causing changes for the wear threshold value, fuse failure value, and/or current event determination)”(i.e. both voltage and current are taught included with finding the thresholds and therefore considered operating point reference.)
Fisher does not explicitly teach,
transmitting the detected electrical state data to a central server using a communications interface in the at least one motor vehicle; and determining and providing, by the central server, the electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle on the basis of a comparison result.
Ienaga teaches,
transmitting the detected electrical state data to a central server using a communications interface in the at least one motor vehicle; (Para. [0009] teaches “transmitting the acquired motor information to an external server using the control device, receiving the motor information using the server, creating a model indicating a state of the motor on a basis of the received motor information and estimating the state of the motor using the server, adapting a motor control parameter on a basis of the model using the server,”)
and determining and providing, by the central server, the electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle on the basis of a comparison result. (Para. [0029] teaches “In the comparison, the difference between the voltage of motor 20 received by the server 600 and the voltage reference value is compared with a predetermined threshold value, and when the difference is larger than the threshold value, it is determined that the difference between the voltage of the motor 20 received by the server 600 and the voltage reference value is larger. Then, when the difference between the voltage of the motor 20 received by the server 600 and the voltage reference value is larger, the abnormality determination unit 604 determines that there is an abnormality caused by changes in the motor characteristics due to a malfunction of the motor 20 or variations in the motor characteristics caused by individual differences.” (i.e. Where the electrical system state is determined abnormal or not.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fisher with transmitting the detected electrical state data to a central server using a communications interface in the at least one motor vehicle; and determining and providing, by the central server, the electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle on the basis of a comparison result such as that of Ienaga. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Fisher, because processing the information outside of the vehicle would reduce the number of components and processing required in the vehicle reducing the cost to produce each vehicle and freeing space in the vehicle for further functionality. Furthermore, Fisher teaches that the controller 214 which process the data in Fisher may be a server as seen in para. [0310] and Fig. 20.
Regarding claim 5,
the combination of Fisher and Ienaga teaches the method of claim 1.
Ienaga further teaches,
wherein the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle is transmitted to one or more of the at least one motor vehicle, a manufacturer of the motor vehicle, and a service provider. (Para. [0032] teaches “In this case, when it is determined that the motor 20 is normal, the communicating unit 610 transmits a notification that the motor 20 is normal to the vehicle 500. When the vehicle 500 receives this notification, the driving force distribution changing unit 102 releases the zero-torque instruction for the motor 20. Accordingly, when it is determined that the motor 20 is normal, the vehicle 500 is operated without changing the control parameters of the motor 20.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fisher wherein the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle is transmitted to one or more of the at least one motor vehicle, a manufacturer of the motor vehicle, and a service provider such as that of Ienaga. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Fisher, because it would allow the vehicle to adjust based on the determination of the server which may prevent a fault or breakdown of the vehicle. Furthermore, adapting the control values would maximize the efficiency of the vehicle as seen in Para. [0004] of Ienaga.
Regarding claim 7,
the combination of Fisher and Ienaga teach the method of claim 1.
Ienaga further teaches,
comprising transmitting additionally detected component state data of at least one component, supplied by the power distribution unit, of the at least one motor vehicle to the central server, wherein the transmitted component state data are taken into account when determining and establishing the at least one reference value and/or during the comparison. (Para. [0022] teaches “The motor information acquisition unit 103 includes a rotation speed acquisition unit 104, a temperature acquisition unit 106, and a voltage acquisition unit 108.” The additional component state data would include the temperature and the rotational speed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fisher comprising transmitting additionally detected component state data of at least one component, supplied by the power distribution unit, of the at least one motor vehicle to the central server, wherein the transmitted component state data are taken into account when determining and establishing the at least one reference value and/or during the comparison such as that of Ienaga. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Fisher, because any component in the branch line could affect any of the other components in the branch line.
Regarding claim 13,
Ienaga further teaches,
wherein the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle is transmitted to one or more of the at least one motor vehicle, a manufacturer of the motor vehicle, and a service provider. (Para. [0032] teaches “In this case, when it is determined that the motor 20 is normal, the communicating unit 610 transmits a notification that the motor 20 is normal to the vehicle 500. When the vehicle 500 receives this notification, the driving force distribution changing unit 102 releases the zero-torque instruction for the motor 20. Accordingly, when it is determined that the motor 20 is normal, the vehicle 500 is operated without changing the control parameters of the motor 20.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fisher wherein the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle is transmitted to one or more of the at least one motor vehicle, a manufacturer of the motor vehicle, and a service provider such as that of Ienaga. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Fisher, because it would allow the vehicle to adjust based on the determination of the server which may prevent a fault or breakdown of the vehicle. Furthermore, adapting the control values would maximize the efficiency of the vehicle as seen in Para. [0004] of Ienaga.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 20200119544 A1) as modified by Ienaga (US 20180276906 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Origuchi (FR 3052262 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
the combination of Fisher and Ienaga does not explicitly teach,
the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one reference value is determined and established taking into account transmitted electrical state data of motor vehicles of a vehicle fleet.
Origuchi teaches,
wherein the at least one reference value is determined and established taking into account transmitted electrical state data of motor vehicles of a vehicle fleet. (The abstract teaches “The method for diagnosing a set of storage batteries (21) distributed in a fleet of motor vehicles (20). According to the invention, the method comprises: a) a step of transmitting, by a communication system of each motor vehicle, at least one value of at least one diagnostic parameter of the accumulator battery associated with said vehicle automobile, b) a step of reception, by a remote server (10), of the values transmitted in step a), c) a step of statistical calculation of a reference value, based on the values received in step b), and d) a step of diagnosing the accumulator batteries, taking into account the values received in step b) and the reference value calculated in step c)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fisher and Ienaga wherein the at least one reference value is determined and established taking into account transmitted electrical state data of motor vehicles of a vehicle fleet such as that of Origuchi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of the combination of Fisher and Ienaga, because according to Origuchi Para. [0002] “thanks to the invention, by comparing the value of the diagnostic parameter of each battery with the reference value, it is possible to anticipate a failure of one or the other of the accumulator batteries, which allows to recall the motor vehicle to a competent repair shop before the problem causes a permanent breakdown.”
Regarding claim 4,
the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi teach the method of claim 3.
The combination of Fisher and Ienaga do not explicitly teach,
comprising statistically evaluating the transmitted electrical state data of the motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet evaluated, wherein the at least one reference value is determined and established on the basis of an evaluation result.
Nevertheless, Origuchi further teaches,
comprising statistically evaluating the transmitted electrical state data of the motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet evaluated, wherein the at least one reference value is determined and established on the basis of an evaluation result. (The abstract teaches “The method for diagnosing a set of storage batteries (21) distributed in a fleet of motor vehicles (20). According to the invention, the method comprises: a) a step of transmitting, by a communication system of each motor vehicle, at least one value of at least one diagnostic parameter of the accumulator battery associated with said vehicle automobile, b) a step of reception, by a remote server (10), of the values transmitted in step a), c) a step of statistical calculation of a reference value, based on the values received in step b), and d) a step of diagnosing the accumulator batteries, taking into account the values received in step b) and the reference value calculated in step c)” Where the evaluation result is the statistical calculation based on the received values.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the combination of Fisher and Ienaga with comprising statistically evaluating the transmitted electrical state data of the motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet evaluated, wherein the at least one reference value is determined and established on the basis of an evaluation results such as that of Origuchi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fisher and Ienaga, because according to Origuchi Para. [0002] “thanks to the invention, by comparing the value of the diagnostic parameter of each battery with the reference value, it is possible to anticipate a failure of one or the other of the accumulator batteries, which allows to recall the motor vehicle to a competent repair shop before the problem causes a permanent breakdown.”
Regarding claim 6,
the combination of Fisher and Ienaga does not explicitly teach,
the method of claim 1, comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle.
Origuchi teaches,
comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle. (Para. [0002] teaches “transmit an alert signal to the electronic control unit 23 of the motor vehicle 20 concerned, so that the latter displays on the display screen 25 a preliminary alert asking the driver to go and have the traction battery 21 3052262 10 serviced as soon as possible. Note that this alert will occur before the traction battery energy management system detects a problem and immobilizes the motor vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fisher and Ienaga with comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle such as that of Origuchi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of the combination of Fisher and Ienaga, because a maintenance recommendation would alert the user of the vehicle to get the vehicle fixed before an accident occurs.
Regarding claim 12,
the combination of Fisher and Ienaga does not explicitly teach,
comprising statistically evaluating the transmitted electrical state data of the motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet evaluated, wherein the at least one reference value is determined and established on the basis of an evaluation result.
Origuchi teaches,
comprising statistically evaluating the transmitted electrical state data of the motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet evaluated, wherein the at least one reference value is determined and established on the basis of an evaluation result. (The abstract teaches “The method for diagnosing a set of storage batteries (21) distributed in a fleet of motor vehicles (20). According to the invention, the method comprises: a) a step of transmitting, by a communication system of each motor vehicle, at least one value of at least one diagnostic parameter of the accumulator battery associated with said vehicle automobile, b) a step of reception, by a remote server (10), of the values transmitted in step a), c) a step of statistical calculation of a reference value, based on the values received in step b), and d) a step of diagnosing the accumulator batteries, taking into account the values received in step b) and the reference value calculated in step c)” Where the evaluation result is the statistical calculation based on the received values.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fisher and Ienaga with comprising statistically evaluating the transmitted electrical state data of the motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet evaluated, wherein the at least one reference value is determined and established on the basis of an evaluation results such as that of Origuchi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fisher and Ienaga, because according to Origuchi Para. [0002] “thanks to the invention, by comparing the value of the diagnostic parameter of each battery with the reference value, it is possible to anticipate a failure of one or the other of the accumulator batteries, which allows to recall the motor vehicle to a competent repair shop before the problem causes a permanent breakdown.”
Regarding claim 14,
the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi teaches the method of claim 3.
Ienaga further teaches,
wherein the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle is transmitted to one or more of the at least one motor vehicle, a manufacturer of the motor vehicle, and a service provider. (Para. [0032] teaches “In this case, when it is determined that the motor 20 is normal, the communicating unit 610 transmits a notification that the motor 20 is normal to the vehicle 50.”)
Regarding claim 15,
the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi teaches the method of claim 4.
Ienaga further teaches,
wherein the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle is transmitted to one or more of the at least one motor vehicle, a manufacturer of the motor vehicle, and a service provider. (Para. [0032] teaches “In this case, when it is determined that the motor 20 is normal, the communicating unit 610 transmits a notification that the motor 20 is normal to the vehicle 50.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi wherein the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle is transmitted to one or more of the at least one motor vehicle, a manufacturer of the motor vehicle, and a service provider such as that of Ienaga. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi, because it would allow the vehicle to adjust based on the determination of the server which may prevent a fault in or breakdown of the vehicle. Furthermore, adapting the control values would maximize the efficiency of the vehicle as seen in Para. [0004] of Ienaga.
Regarding claim 17,
the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi teaches the method of claim 3.
Ienaga does not explicitly teach,
comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle.
Nevertheless, Origuchi teaches,
comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle. (Para. [0002] teaches “transmit an alert signal to the electronic control unit 23 of the motor vehicle 20 concerned, so that the latter displays on the display screen 25 a preliminary alert asking the driver to go and have the traction battery 21 3052262 10 serviced as soon as possible. Note that this alert will occur before the traction battery energy management system detects a problem and immobilizes the motor vehicle.” (i.e. maintenance recommendation is having traction battery serviced.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi, with comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle such as that of Origuchi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi, because a maintenance recommendation would alert the user of the vehicle to get the vehicle fixed before an accident occurs.
Regarding claim 18,
the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi teaches the method of claim 4.
Ienaga does not explicitly teach,
comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle.
Origuchi teaches,
comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle. (Para. [0002] teaches “transmit an alert signal to the electronic control unit 23 of the motor vehicle 20 concerned, so that the latter displays on the display screen 25 a preliminary alert asking the driver to go and have the traction battery 21 3052262 10 serviced as soon as possible. Note that this alert will occur before the traction battery energy management system detects a problem and immobilizes the motor vehicle.” (i.e. maintenance recommendation is having traction battery serviced.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi with comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle such as that of Origuchi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi, because a maintenance recommendation would alert the user of the vehicle to get the vehicle fixed before an accident occurs.
Regarding claim 19,
the combination of Fisher and Ienaga teaches the method of claim 5.
Ienaga does not explicitly teach,
comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle.
Origuchi teaches,
comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle. (Para. [0002] teaches “transmit an alert signal to the electronic control unit 23 of the motor vehicle 20 concerned, so that the latter displays on the display screen 25 a preliminary alert asking the driver to go and have the traction battery 21 3052262 10 serviced as soon as possible. Note that this alert will occur before the traction battery energy management system detects a problem and immobilizes the motor vehicle.” (i.e. maintenance recommendation is having traction battery serviced.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fisher and Ienaga comprising generating and providing at least one maintenance recommendation depending on the determined electrical system state of the at least one motor vehicle such as that of Origuchi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fisher and Ienaga, because a maintenance recommendation would alert the user of the vehicle to get the vehicle fixed before an accident occurs.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 20200119544 A1) as modified by Ienaga (US 20180276906 A1) and Origuchi (FR 3052262 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Manabu (JP 2014068434 A).
With respect to claim 21,
Fisher does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 4, wherein comparing the transmitted electrical state data with at least one reference value comprises comparing the transmitted electrical state data of the at least one motor vehicle to a standard deviation from an average of a distribution of corresponding electrical state data of the vehicle fleet.
Manabu teaches,
wherein comparing the transmitted electrical state data with at least one reference value comprises comparing the transmitted electrical state data of the at least one motor vehicle to a standard deviation from an average of a distribution of corresponding electrical state data of the vehicle fleet. (Para. [0006] teaches “The battery abnormality determination system and method of the present invention determines to which battery capacity maintenance rate category and average battery temperature category each piece of information on battery capacity retention rate and average battery temperature obtained from a plurality of electric vehicles belongs, stores battery volume information for each category to which it belongs, calculates volume statistics such as the average value and standard deviation for each category, and determines whether the battery volume of a specific electric vehicle is abnormal from the volume statistics.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi wherein comparing the transmitted electrical state data with at least one reference value comprises comparing the transmitted electrical state data of the at least one motor vehicle to a standard deviation from an average of a distribution of corresponding electrical state data of the vehicle fleet such as that of Manabu. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fisher, Ienaga, and Origuchi, because comparing data to a standard deviation and an average is a well-known method of statistical analysis. Also, according to Para. [0006] Manabu the statistical analysis would allow the system to tell if a specific vehicle is abnormal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights