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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/9/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-6 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection under U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 4/11/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed10/9/20285 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument is moot as it is not based on the claims as examined in the office action mailed 4/11/2025 but rather on the amended claims submitted 10/9/2025. The applicant’s cited limitations to argue against the rejection, such as “wherein the first display mode does not include the indicator display” are part of amendments added to the claim after mailing of the office action, and therefore not present for the previous examination and rejection. See updated rejection of the claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanek (US 20130221741), herein after referred to as Stanek, in view of Gibeau (US 20160200211), herein after referred to as Gibeau.
Regarding Claim 1, Stanek discloses:
an output limiting unit configured to limit an output of the vehicle (see at least [0056] “To extend the overall vehicle travel range, the vehicle system 10 initiates a limited operating strategy (LOS) once the BSOC reaches the discharge limit 110. During LOS, the vehicle system 10 reduces battery power from a full power limit, which is referenced by numeral 114, to an intermediate power limit, which is referenced by numeral 116. ”)
in a case that a state of charge of the battery is equal to or smaller than a first value (see at least [0055] “Referring to FIGS. 3 and 4, the battery 32 may be damaged if operated below the discharge limit 110 at high battery power levels … the battery 32 may operate below the discharge limit 110 at a reduced battery power level for a short distance (e.g., five to seven miles) without damaging the battery 32.”)
and a battery state display unit configured to display a state of the battery on a display (see at least [Fig,12, item 38] [0071] “the CSOC is conveyed pictorially as a gage 312 having markings or horizontal lines that represent CSOC values. The discharge limit (0% CSOC) is represented by the letter "E" for "Empty" and by a horizontal line, referenced by numeral 314. The charging limit (100% CSOC) is represented by the letter "F" for "Full" and by a horizontal line referenced by numeral 316. The present energy level of the battery 32 is represented by a horizontal line 318, which is above the discharge limit 314. The present energy level 318 is approximately 22% BSOC which corresponds to a DTE of 15 miles, in the illustrated embodiment.”)
wherein the battery state display unit switches (see at least [0056] “To extend the overall vehicle travel range, the vehicle system 10 initiates a limited operating strategy (LOS) once the BSOC reaches the discharge limit 110” [0074] “the vehicle system 10 displays different warning messages during limited operating conditions based on the present BSOC value”)
and displays a first display mode indicating that the state of charge of the battery exceeds a second value that is larger than the first value (see at least [Fig. 12] [0019] “FIG. 12 is an enlarged view of the user interface of FIG. 12, illustrating a normal operating message;”)
a second display mode indicating that the state of charge of the battery is equal to or smaller than the second value and exceeds the first value and the output of the vehicle may be limited (see at least [Fig. 13] [0055] “ the vehicle system 10 warns the driver before the BSOC reaches the discharge limit 110. Similar to the illumination of a "low fuel" indicia on a traditional vehicle, the vehicle system 10 displays a warning message (FIG. 13) when the BSOC decreases below the low charge limit 113.”)
and a third display mode indicating that the state of charge of the battery is equal to or smaller than the first value and the output of the vehicle is being limited (see at least [Fig. 14] [0065] “If the determination at 220 is positive, the vehicle controller 14 proceeds to operation 222 and displays a limited operating strategy (LOS) message (e.g., the message shown in FIG. 14 or FIG. 15).”)
wherein the second display mode includes an indicator display indicating a difference between a current state of charge of the battery and the first value. (see at least [Fig. 13, item 416] [0072] “The discharge limit (0% CSOC) is represented by a base 414 of the battery element 412 and the letter "E" for "Empty". The charging limit (100% CSOC) is represented by a top 416 of the battery element 412 and the letter "F" for "Full". The present energy level of the battery 32 is represented by a fluid level line 418, which is above the discharge limit 414. The present energy level 418 is approximately 15% BSOC which corresponds to a DTE of 9 miles, in the illustrated embodiment.”
and wherein, when the state of charge of the battery is equal to the second value, the indicator display indicates a maximum value of a display range set for the indicator display (see at least [Fig. 13, item 420] [0072] “the low charge limit (20% BSOC) is shown on the gage according to one or more embodiments and referenced by numeral 420.”)
Stanek does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first display mode does not include the indicator display,
In the same field of endeavor, Gibeau discloses:
wherein the first display mode does not include the indicator display, (see at least [Fig. 6] [0059] “The present energy level 256 of the illustrated embodiment is approximately 22% BSOC, which corresponds to a DTE of 15 miles. Additionally, the charging limit (UL) from the last charging cycle is shown on the gage according to one or more embodiments and referenced by numeral 258.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Stanek to not include the indicator display indicating a difference between a current state of charge of the battery and the first value during a first mode, as taught by Gibeau to display different information [0059].
Regarding Claim 3, Stanek discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the battery state display unit switches a display from the second display mode to the first display mode in a case that the state of charge of the battery exceeds the second value after the display of the second display mode is started.
However, to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s claim invention, the Stanek reference makes the limitation obvious, see at least ([Fig. 10] [0039] “The vehicle 12 utilizes regenerative braking as the primary braking source ... Regenerative braking recharges the main battery 32 and recovers much of the energy that would otherwise be lost as heat during friction braking.") Examiner interprets that as the vehicle is capable of gaining charge during operation, and the figure 10 flowchart demonstrates that the process can revert from block 220 to 214, and then from 214 to 216, this limitation is disclosed in the reference as a low message may be replaced by a normal operating message.
Regarding Claim 6, Stanek discloses:
a step of limiting an output of the vehicle (see at least [0056] “To extend the overall vehicle travel range, the vehicle system 10 initiates a limited operating strategy (LOS) once the BSOC reaches the discharge limit 110. During LOS, the vehicle system 10 reduces battery power from a full power limit, which is referenced by numeral 114, to an intermediate power limit, which is referenced by numeral 116. ”)
in a case that a state of charge of the battery is equal to or smaller than a first value (see at least [0055] “Referring to FIGS. 3 and 4, the battery 32 may be damaged if operated below the discharge limit 110 at high battery power levels … the battery 32 may operate below the discharge limit 110 at a reduced battery power level for a short distance (e.g., five to seven miles) without damaging the battery 32.”)
and a step of displaying a state of the battery on a display (see at least [Fig,12, item 38] [0071] “the CSOC is conveyed pictorially as a gage 312 having markings or horizontal lines that represent CSOC values. The discharge limit (0% CSOC) is represented by the letter "E" for "Empty" and by a horizontal line, referenced by numeral 314. The charging limit (100% CSOC) is represented by the letter "F" for "Full" and by a horizontal line referenced by numeral 316. The present energy level of the battery 32 is represented by a horizontal line 318, which is above the discharge limit 314. The present energy level 318 is approximately 22% BSOC which corresponds to a DTE of 15 miles, in the illustrated embodiment.”)
wherein the displaying step switches (see at least [0056] “To extend the overall vehicle travel range, the vehicle system 10 initiates a limited operating strategy (LOS) once the BSOC reaches the discharge limit 110” [0074] “the vehicle system 10 displays different warning messages during limited operating conditions based on the present BSOC value”)
and displays a first display mode indicating that the state of charge of the battery exceeds a second value that is larger than the first value (see at least [Fig. 12] [0019] “FIG. 12 is an enlarged view of the user interface of FIG. 12, illustrating a normal operating message;”)
a second display mode indicating that the state of charge of the battery is equal to or smaller than the second value and exceeds the first value and the output of the vehicle may be limited, (see at least [Fig. 13] [0055] “ the vehicle system 10 warns the driver before the BSOC reaches the discharge limit 110. Similar to the illumination of a "low fuel" indicia on a traditional vehicle, the vehicle system 10 displays a warning message (FIG. 13) when the BSOC decreases below the low charge limit 113.”)
and a third display mode indicating that the state of charge of the battery is equal to or smaller than the first value and the output of the vehicle is being limited (see at least [Fig. 14] [0065] “If the determination at 220 is positive, the vehicle controller 14 proceeds to operation 222 and displays a limited operating strategy (LOS) message (e.g., the message shown in FIG. 14 or FIG. 15).”)
wherein the second display mode includes an indicator display indicating a difference between a current state of charge of the battery and the first value. (see at least [Fig. 13, item 416] [0072] “The discharge limit (0% CSOC) is represented by a base 414 of the battery element 412 and the letter "E" for "Empty". The charging limit (100% CSOC) is represented by a top 416 of the battery element 412 and the letter "F" for "Full". The present energy level of the battery 32 is represented by a fluid level line 418, which is above the discharge limit 414. The present energy level 418 is approximately 15% BSOC which corresponds to a DTE of 9 miles, in the illustrated embodiment. Additionally, the low charge limit (20% BSOC) is shown on the gage according to one or more embodiments and referenced by numeral 420.”)
and wherein, when the state of charge of the battery is equal to the second value, the indicator display indicates a maximum value of a display range set for the indicator display (see at least [Fig. 13, item 420] [0072] “the low charge limit (20% BSOC) is shown on the gage according to one or more embodiments and referenced by numeral 420.”)
Stanek does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first display mode does not include the indicator display,
In the same field of endeavor, Gibeau discloses:
wherein the first display mode does not include the indicator display, (see at least [Fig. 6] [0059] “The present energy level 256 of the illustrated embodiment is approximately 22% BSOC, which corresponds to a DTE of 15 miles. Additionally, the charging limit (UL) from the last charging cycle is shown on the gage according to one or more embodiments and referenced by numeral 258.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Stanek to not include the indicator display indicating a difference between a current state of charge of the battery and the first value during a first mode, as taught by Gibeau to display different information [0059].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanek (US 20130221741), herein after referred to as Stanek, in view of Gibeau (US 20160200211), herein after referred to as Gibeau and Wang (US 20150104680), herein after referred to as Wang.
Regarding Claim 4, Stanek discloses the device of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the output limiting unit limits the output of the vehicle in a case that a temperature of the battery exceeds an output limiting temperature
and wherein the battery state display unit displays the third display mode regardless of the state of charge of the battery.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses:
wherein the output limiting unit limits the output of the vehicle in a case that a temperature of the battery exceeds an output limiting temperature (see at least [0035] “ The battery's available power begins to decrease in response to the increasing battery pack temperature estimate, thereby limiting electrical output power of the battery based on the estimated battery temperature. The battery electrical power availability may be reduced via limiting battery output current and/or voltage.”)
and wherein the battery state display unit displays the third display mode regardless of the state of charge of the battery. (See at least [0017] “Inputs and outputs 132 are in electrical communication with battery pack sensors and actuators (e.g., temperature sensor 108). Battery controller 130 is in electrical communication with user display or light 150 for indicating battery pack degradation.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control and user display field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Stanek to limit power based on temperature measurements as well, and to display this information to the driver, as taught by Wang to prevent battery pack degradation by damaging temperatures [0005].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanek (US 20130221741), herein after referred to as Stanek, in view of Gibeau (US 20160200211), herein after referred to as Gibeau and Gueziec (US 20060158330), herein after referred to as Gueziec.
Regarding Claim 5, Stanek discloses the device of Claim 1, and further discloses:
wherein the second display mode and the third display mode include an output limiting display indicating whether the output is limited (see at least [0073] “ As mentioned above with respect to FIG. 10, the vehicle controller 14 provides a limited operating message to the interface 16 when the BSOC is below the discharge limit. This message may be conveyed to the driver both pictorially (e.g., as a turtle) and using text (e.g., "Limited Performance"), and is generally referenced by numeral 522.”)
Stanek does not explicitly disclose:
and wherein the output limiting display in the third display mode is displayed in a color tone having a saturation higher than that of the output limiting display in the second display mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Gueziec discloses:
and wherein the output limiting display in the third display mode is displayed in a color tone having a saturation higher than that of the output limiting display in the second display mode. (see least [0322] “typically uses more intense and saturated colors for depicting more severe incidents”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle user display field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Stanek to display information to the driver using increased color saturation to indicate a more severe state, as taught by Gueziec to inform a user of the more or less severe nature of surrounding road incidents [0322].
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 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 JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662