DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissontz (WO 2012 128770) in view of Wolf (U.S. Pat. No. 10,259,340) and further in view of Morisaki (U.S. Pat. No. 9,481,359).
Regarding claim 1 , Bissontz discloses a method of controlling a regenerative braking system of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises a battery, the method comprising:
Detecting that a state of charge of the battery is above a first threshold level (¶16 discloses tracking SOC);
Activating the first electrical load prior to activation of the regenerative braking system to reduce the state of charge of the battery below the first threshold level (this occurs when it wakes up);
Note: when the vehicle is “asleep” it is in a low power state. To then “wake up” the vehicle is to place it in a higher power state, i.e. increasing the load. So if the reference state of the vehicle is “sleep” and the load that will be activated before regenerative braking is to “wake” the vehicle then any operation of the vehicle including waking up is the only thing needed to address these limitations as that is a higher load state than sleep. In other words “waking” up the vehicle is a predictor of operation, operation leads to regenerative braking, and since it is now in a higher load state then when “sleeping” it can be said to have activated the load.
a regenerative braking event of the vehicle; and activating a first electrical load to consume energy from the regenerative braking event to prevent a battery state of charge being increased beyond a first threshold level during the regenerative braking event (¶16 discloses there is a limit to the batteries ability to accept more charge over a threshold and turns on a compressor as a “power sink” and ¶30 discloses that the trigger for operating the electrical compressor load would be during a regenerative braking event where the battery cannot store extra charge).
Bissontz does not disclose Detecting a trigger event to activate a first electrical load prior to activation of the regenerative braking system, wherein the trigger event is one or more of a smart phone application used to wake up the vehicle, detection of a key in proximity, or a predetermined set time; or predicting a regenerative braking event of the vehicle based on navigation data
Wolf, which deals in turning on vehicles, teaches Detecting a trigger event to activate a first electrical load prior to activation of the regenerative braking system, wherein the trigger event is one or more of a smart phone application used to wake up the vehicle (key option addressed), detection of a key in proximity (col. 4, lines 58-64), or a predetermined set time (key option addressed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Bissontz with the wake up of Wolf because the vehicle does not operate when asleep and Bissontz is silent as to how to wake-up/turn on.
Morisaki, which deals in regenerative braking, teaches predicting a regenerative braking event of the vehicle based on navigation data (col. 6, lines 28-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Bissontz with the predicting of Morisake because this allows for a correct prediction of battery usage (col. 7, lines 23-35).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Bissontz discloses comprising: detecting a surplus of energy from the regenerative braking event; and storing the surplus energy in the battery (¶8 and ¶16).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 2, Bissontz discloses further comprising: after the regenerative braking event, reactivating the first electrical load to consume energy from the battery (this was already active during the event. Is this requiring a load that is active at other times? The compressor, 32, of this citation is active during other events).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 1, Bissontz discloses wherein the first electrical load is one or more of. a low-voltage battery system, a seat heating element, a windscreen heating element, an electronic exhaust gas heating element, an electronic catalyst, an air conditioning system (compressor option addressed), an air compressor (32 is an air compressor), a water pump, a DC to AC external power system, a Positive Temperature Coefficient Heater, or an infotainment system (compressor option addressed).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 1, Bissontz discloses further comprising, in response to detecting activation of the regenerative braking system, increasing the first electrical load (¶16 discusses how to increase the electrical load).
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 9, Bissontz discloses wherein increasing the electrical load comprises activating a second electrical load (¶31 discloses that valves 67 can also be used to consume electrical power).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 10, Bissontz discloses wherein the first and second electrical load are activated at the same time (this can occur when the tanks are at maximum pressure).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 10, Bissontz discloses wherein the second electrical load is one or more of: a first motor, or a second motor with a lower power output than the first motor, an electronic exhaust gas heating element, a low-voltage battery system, a seat heating element, a windscreen heating element, an electronic catalyst, an air conditioning system (¶23 discloses an HVAC system), an air compressor, a water pump, a DC to AC external power system, a positive temperature coefficient heater, or an infotainment system (HVAC option addressed).
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 1, Bissontz discloses further comprising activating the first electrical load while the vehicle is parked, charging (during regenerative braking the battery is charging).
Regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 2, Morisaki discloses further comprising activating the first electrical load in response to a user-determined charge profile (the navigation is defined by the user).
Regarding claim 16 which depends from claim 15, Bissontz discloses wherein the prediction is based on one or more of: vehicle data; GPS data; ADAS; traffic sign recognition; cruise control system (inputs option addressed); driver inputs (pressing the brake); or historic route information (inputs option addressed).
Regarding claim 17 which depends from claim 15, Bissontz discloses wherein: the predicting is further based on a driving mode of the vehicle; and the driving mode is one of electric propulsion; combustion engine propulsion; one pedal driving operation; or a combination thereof (pressing the brake while being propelled would be the predictor requiring propulsion).
Regarding claim 18, Bissontz discloses a regenerative braking system of a vehicle wherein the vehicle comprises a battery, the regenerative braking system comprising: a first electrical load electrically coupled to the regenerative braking system; control circuitry communicatively coupled to the first electrical load and the regenerative braking system, the control circuitry configured to: predict a regenerative braking event of the vehicle based on navigation data; and activate the first electrical load to consume energy from the regenerative braking event to prevent a battery state of charge being increased beyond a first threshold level during the regenerative braking event (¶8 and ¶16 and addressed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 19 which depends from claim 18, Bissontz discloses a vehicle comprising the regenerative braking system of claim 18 (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20 which depends from claim 1, Bissontz discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon for carrying out the method of claim 1 (ESC).
Regarding claim 21, Bissontz discloses a method of controlling a regenerative braking system of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises a battery, the method comprising: Detecting that a state of charge of the battery is above a first threshold level; Detecting a trigger event to activate a first electrical load prior to activation of the regenerative braking system, wherein the trigger event is one or more of a smart phone application used to wake up the vehicle, detection of a key in proximity, or a predetermined set time; Activating the first electrical load prior to activation of the regenerative braking system to reduce the state of charge of the battery below the first threshold level; detecting a braking event of the vehicle, the braking event comprising a first contribution to braking effort from a friction brake (¶8 discloses friction brakes/service brakes supplementing and ¶27 discloses how this allows the reduction of use of the friction brakes) and a second contribution to braking effort from the regenerative braking system; and activating a first electrical load to consume energy from the regenerative braking system to maintain a state of charge of the battery during the braking event and reduce the first contribution to braking effort from the friction brake (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 1).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissontz (WO 2012 128770) in view of Wolf (U.S. Pat. No. 10,259,340) and further in view of Morisaki (U.S. Pat. No. 9,481,359) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rahm (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0126729).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 1, Bissontz does not disclose further comprising: deactivating the first electrical load when the battery state of charge reaches a second threshold level, the second threshold level lower than the first threshold level.
Rahm, which deals in regenerative braking, teaches further comprising: deactivating the first electrical load when the battery state of charge reaches a second threshold level, the second threshold level lower than the first threshold level (¶8 discloses that when the threshold of battery charging capacity is full then it will give power to electrical loads. When the capacity of the battery is able to receive power then it compares the electrical regeneration amount to the battery capacity to determine whether to control the load creating a second variable threshold).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Bissontz with the second threshold of Rahm because this allows for maximum storage of energy to be used efficiently.
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 6, Rahm discloses wherein the difference between the first and second threshold provides capacity for an expected regenerative braking event (the second threshold is calculated based on expected regeneration and battery capacity).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/26 have been fully considered and do require an additional citation to address the amendments. Above the claims have been addressed by Bissontz in view of Wolf in view of Morisaki.
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.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights