DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 09/04/2025.
Claims 1-16 and 29 are pending.
Claims 17-28 are withdrawn.
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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 29 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the claims recite limitation “an average emission produced to bring the electrical system on-line” render the claims indefinite because it is not clear whether the produced average emission is from system off mode to system on mode and continues with the system on mode or at which point does the measurement of average emission stop after the system is back on-line. In other words, the above limitation does not specify the duration or time interval for the produced average emission. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the above limitation as “an average emission produced to bring the electrical system on-line for a duration”
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 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 of this title, 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 1-16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzel (US Publication 2020/0011903 A1) and in view of Linowes et al (US Patent 9,251,472 B1) and in further view of Proeitty et al (US Publication 20100241339 A1).
The teachings of Menzel as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by reference to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 14 to incorporate the limitations that (1) wherein the at least one of the group comprising recovery metric(s) and the recovery status(es) include at least an average emissions produced to bring the electrical system on-line after the at least one identified event.
Regarding limitation (1), Menzel and Linowes do not explicitly disclose (1) wherein the at least one of the group comprising recovery metric(s) and the recovery status(es) include at least an average emissions produced to bring the electrical system on-line after the at least one identified event. However, Proeitty discloses (1) wherein the at least one of the group comprising recovery metric(s) and the recovery status(es) include at least an average emissions produced to bring the electrical system on-line after the at least one identified event [abstract: Instantaneous CO2 produced and/or average CO2 produced can be computed and displayed. Instantaneous CO2 produced is averaged over a short interval with the display updated regularly. Average CO2 produced is averaged over a typically longer interval, being reset, in one embodiment, by an operator of the vehicle depressing a reset button] [0009: The reset, in one embodiment, is operator controlled by depressing an operator reset button; and in another embodiment, it is a key on operation] [0026].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Menzel, Linowes and Proietty together because they all directed to present the information to the user. Proietty’s disclosing of an average emissions produced to bring the electrical system on-line after the at least one identified event would allow Menzel in view of Linowes to alert the user/operator the average level of emission produced by resetting the system.
Regarding claims 2-13 and 29, the base claim is taught by Menzel in view of Linowes and Proietty as disclosed above and the additional limitations in claims 2-13 and 29 are taught by Menzel as disclosed in the previous office action.
Regarding claims 14-16, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of 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 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 (see MPEP § 2123).
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHIL K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3356. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 a.m - 5 p.m.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. 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.
/PHIL K NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights