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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 October, 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 17-20 are new.
Claim Interpretation
The claims remain interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth at pages 3-6 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 14 August, 2024, particularly, points 8(a), 8(b), 8(f), 8(g), and 8(h) and as set forth at pages 3-5 of the Final Office Action mailed on 19 February, 2025, particularly, points 8(a), 8(b), and 8(c).
Furthermore, newly presented claim 19 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the recitation of “navigation unit” and “intelligent thermal load management module” previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) with regards to other claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“ a propulsion power demand model…configured to calculate an expected propulsion power demand for propulsive components of an electric vehicle…,
an auxiliary power demand model…configured to calculate an expected auxiliary power demand for auxiliary components of said electric vehicle…,” (system of claim 1)
, which lacks sufficient written description support, in view of the originally-filed disclosure. With regards to the written description requirement, MPEP § 2161.01-I provides “For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.”, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.”, and “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”. Further, see MPEP § 2163.02. The originally-filed disclosure fails to provide any description of the steps/procedure for performing the claimed computer-implemented limitations. At best, the propulsion power demand model and the auxiliary power demand model receive input (pg. 10, lines 13- pg. 11, line 1 – input of the propulsion power demand model; pg. 10, lines 5-8 – input of the auxiliary power demand model) and output the expected power demand of the propulsive components and expected power demand of the auxiliary components (pg. 10, lines 1-5). As such, the specification fails to outline reasonable amount of disclosure to apprise one having ordinary skill within the art the achieved function of the propulsion power demand model and auxiliary power demand model, and thereby, fails to reasonably show that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. For this reason, claim 1, and the dependents thereof (claims 2-9 and 17-18), is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description support for the claim limitations.
Claim 10 recites:
“ calculating an expected propulsion power demand for propulsive components of an electric vehicle by said propulsion power demand model…,
calculating an expected power demand for auxiliary components of said electric vehicle by said auxiliary power demand model…,” (method of claim 10)
, which lacks sufficient written description support, in view of the originally-filed disclosure. With regards to the written description requirement, MPEP § 2161.01-I provides “For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.”, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.”, and “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”. Further, see MPEP § 2163.02. The originally-filed disclosure fails to provide any description of the steps/procedure for performing the claimed computer-implemented limitations. At best, the propulsion power demand model and the auxiliary power demand model receive input (pg. 10, lines 13- pg. 11, line 1 – input of the propulsion power demand model; pg. 10, lines 5-8 – input of the auxiliary power demand model) and output the expected power demand of the propulsive components and expected power demand of the auxiliary components (pg. 10, lines 1-5). As such, the specification fails to outline reasonable amount of disclosure to apprise one having ordinary skill within the art the achieved function of the propulsion power demand model and auxiliary power demand model, and thereby, fails to reasonably show that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. For this reason, claim 10, and the dependents thereof (claims 11-16), is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description support for the claim limitations.
Claim 19 recites:
“ calculating an expected propulsion power demand for propulsive components of an electric vehicle by said propulsion power demand model…,
calculating an expected power demand for auxiliary components of said electric vehicle by said auxiliary power demand model…,” (one or more non-transitory computer-readable media instructions set forth by of claim 19)
, which lacks sufficient written description support, in view of the originally-filed disclosure. With regards to the written description requirement, MPEP § 2161.01-I provides “For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.”, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.”, and “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”. Further, see MPEP § 2163.02. The originally-filed disclosure fails to provide any description of the steps/procedure for performing the claimed computer-implemented limitations. At best, the propulsion power demand model and the auxiliary power demand model receive input (pg. 10, lines 13- pg. 11, line 1 – input of the propulsion power demand model; pg. 10, lines 5-8 – input of the auxiliary power demand model) and output the expected power demand of the propulsive components and expected power demand of the auxiliary components (pg. 10, lines 1-5). As such, the specification fails to outline reasonable amount of disclosure to apprise one having ordinary skill within the art the achieved function of the propulsion power demand model and auxiliary power demand model, and thereby, fails to reasonably show that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. For this reason, claim 19, and the dependents thereof (claim 20), is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description support for the claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 October, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 9-10, Applicant alleges page 8, lines 9-17 provides evidence of the propulsion demand model and page 11, lines 4-8 provides evidence of the auxiliary demand model, to overcome the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Page 8, lines 9-17 of the originally-filed specification recite:
“From the propulsion power demand model 116 and the auxiliary power demand model 130, an intelligent thermal load management module 132 can direct output of power to manage a total, combined expected demand. The propulsion power demand model 116 can send expected power demand as a function of distance to the intelligent thermal load management module 132, along with current distance to expected destination. The propulsion power demand model 116 can send expected power demand as a function of time to the intelligent thermal load management module 132, along with the duration to reach the expected destination. Alternatively or additionally, the expected power demand can send as a function of distance along with the expected distance to destination.”
Page 11, lines 4-8 of the originally-filed specification recite:
“Meanwhile, the auxiliary power demand model (e.g., auxiliary power demand model 130 of FIG. 1) calculates the expected power for auxiliary components. The auxiliary power demand model makes this calculation based on weather and road condition data gathered and the temperature set by the driver. Such user settings are stored in the database and used to build the driver profiles that inform the drive cycle prediction for determining future destinations.”
With regards to the arguments of the auxiliary power demand model and propulsion power demand model, presented at pages 9-10 within the Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed on 28 October, 2025, the evidence of record, or lack thereof, fails to support the conclusion made by the Applicant. Page 8, lines 9-17 and Page 11, lines 4-8 fail to provide any evidence to provide or reasonably describe, in such a way that one having ordinary skill within the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have understood, how to transform the input data to achieve the output data of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no model disclosed other than merely boxes labeled). For this reason, the arguments with respect to the auxiliary power demand model and propulsion power demand model are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention has been previously discussed on the record. See Final Office Action mailed on 19 February, 2025 at pages 12-13. This discussion is incorporated here by reference in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 11/12/2025
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763