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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim cites “the resistor grid” with insufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thacher et al. (US 2006/0046895).
Regarding to claim 1:
Thacher et al. discloses a system comprising: a controller that is configured to control conduction of generated electric current from
one or more traction motors of a vehicle to both of a first energy assembly and a second energy
assembly (Abstract: The drive motor generates electrical energy during braking or deceleration of the vehicle), the controller is configured to control the conduction of the generated electric current
based at least in part on a measured or estimated value for a rate, an amount, or both a rate
and an amount, of which the generated electric current is generated by the one or more traction
motors (FIG. 3 shows that the generated electrical energy is conducted to a resistive load or an energy storage (1st and 2nd energy assemblies) depending on the amount of the electrical energy generated for an evaluation interval (step S109 and paragraphs [0048]-[0049])),
the controller is further configured to direct a first portion of the generated electric current to the second energy assembly and a second portion of the generated electric current to the first energy assembly based on the measured or estimated value for the rate, the amount, or both
the rate and the amount at which the generated electric current is generated by the one or more
traction motors (FIG. 3: A portion of the generated electrical energy that excesses a predetermined threshold (step S109) will be directed to the resistive load (step S108), and the other portion of the generated electrical energy that is less than the threshold is directed to the energy storage (step S110)).
Regarding to claims 2 and 5: wherein the controller is configured to control conduction of the generated electric current output from the one or more traction motors during braking of the vehicle (FIG. 3, step S102: Generate electrical energy during braking or deceleration) to one or more of the first energy assembly, the second energy assembly, or a third energy assembly of the vehicle based on a state of health of one or more of the first energy assembly, the second energy assembly, or the third energy assembly (FIG. 3, step S109: State-of-charge of the battery).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brooking (WO 2014/118678).
Brooking discloses a method comprising:
determining a rate at which electric current is being generated or will be generated by
one or more traction motors of a vehicle (page 3, 1st paragraph: “Regenerative braking can cause corresponding high transient current surges”, this reads on the rate as claimed);
directing a first portion of the electric current generated by the one or more traction
motors to a second energy assembly and directing a second portion of the generated electric
current to a first energy assembly of the vehicle responsive at least in part to the determined
rate (page 3, 2nd paragraph: The high transient (high rate) electrical energy and power surges associated with rapid speed changes in electric vehicles is directed to a super capacitor. The lower transient (low rate) is direct to a traction battery).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thacher et al. (US 2006/0046895) in view of Gollomp et al. (US 6424157).
Thacher et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, except wherein the controller is further configured provide a notification responsive to the state of health of the one or more energy assemblies reaching a predetermined value indicative of decline in performance.
Gollomp et al. discloses a system/method for monitoring and reporting on the condition of a vehicle battery by measuring battery parameters to calculate rate of change of QV and SoC to output appropriate messages as a warning of potential problems related to the battery (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thacher’s controller to consider the battery condition, SoC, or SoH to output messages to advise drivers/users various real and potential problems related to the battery as taught by Gollomp et al. (Abstract).
Regarding to claim 4: wherein the controller is configured to control conduction of the generated electric current output from the one or more traction motors during braking of the vehicle to one or more of the second energy assembly or the third energy assembly responsive to the state of health of the first energy assembly reaching the predetermined value indicative of decline in performance (Thacher et al.: FIG. 3, step S109: Has the target state-of-charge of the battery been reached?).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooking (WO 2014/118678), and further in view of Thacher et al. (US 2006/0046895) and Gollomp et al. (US 6424157).
Brooking discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, except providing a notification responsive to the state of health of the one or more energy assemblies reaching a predetermined value indicative of decline in performance and controlling the conduction of the generated electric current output from the one or more traction motors during braking of the vehicle to one or more of the first energy assembly, the second energy assembly, or a third energy assembly of the vehicle based on a state of health of one or more of the first energy assembly, the second energy assembly, or the third energy assembly.
Gollomp et al. discloses a system/method for monitoring and reporting on the condition of a vehicle battery by measuring battery parameters to calculate rate of change of QV and SoC to output appropriate messages as a warning of potential problems related to the battery (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brooking’s controller to consider the battery condition, SoC, or SoH to output messages to advise drivers/users various real and potential problems related to the battery as taught by Gollomp et al. (Abstract).
Furthermore, Thacher et al. discloses a method for controlling a vehicle for regenerative braking comprising controlling the conduction of the generated electric current output from one or more traction motors during braking of the vehicle (FIG. 3, step S102: Generate electrical energy during braking or deceleration) to one or more of a first energy assembly, a second energy assembly, or a third energy assembly of the vehicle based on a state of health of one or more of the first energy assembly, the second energy assembly, or the third energy assembly (FIG. 3, step S109: State-of-charge of the battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brooking’s controller to consider the SoH or SoC of the batteries in order to direct the conduction of the generated electrical current/energy to charge/not charge the batteries accordantly as taught by Thacher et al. (FIG. 3).
Claim(s) 21, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thacher et al. (US 2006/0046895) in view of Brooking (WO 2014/118678).
Thacher et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except wherein the controller is further configured to direct the first portion of the generated electric current to the second energy assembly based on the measured or estimated value for the rate at which the generated electric current generated by the one or more traction motors exceeding a threshold rate determined by a rate at which the first energy assembly is able to receive the generated electric current to store energy.
Brooking discloses an energy system in a vehicle that generates current when the vehicle is place in a braking mode, wherein the current generated due to braking is directed to a super capacitor due to the high transient (rate) and then is directed to charge the battery as conventionally (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thacher’s controller to direct the generated current to an energy assembly, such as a super capacitor, as disclosed by Brooking while in the high transient duration, to avoid the charge surge or fluctuation on the vehicle battery.
Regarding to claims 23-24: further comprising a resistor grid configured to convert at least some of the generated electric current to thermal energy for dissipation, wherein the controller is further configured to direct at least some of the generated electric current to the resistor grid based on the capacity of the first energy assembly and the second energy assembly, wherein the controller is further configured to inhibit directing the generated electric current to the resistor grid when a temperature of the resistor grid exceeds a threshold temperature (Brooking: Abstract and FIG. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein the controller is further configured to continue directing the generated electric current to the second energy assembly until at least one of the
following conditions is reached: (i) the measured or estimated value for the rate of the generated
electric current decreases below the threshold rate; (ii) a storage capacity of the second energy
assembly is reached; or (iii) a threshold amount of the capacity of the second energy assembly
is reached; and based on reaching the condition, direct at least some remaining generated electric current to at least one of the first energy assembly or a resistor grid is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s Remarks regarding to that Thacher does not teach the conduction of the generated electric current portionly to each of both the first energy assembly and the second energy assembly simultaneously, the Examiner cites that the claim language does not define/require wherein the conduction to both energy assemblies to be simultaneous; as a result, Thacher’s FIGs. 2-3 shows the conduction to both energy assemblies, at a different time window, that thus still reads on the claimed conduction. In addition, the term “portion” of an amount is generally defined as a sub-amount from 0% to 100% of such amount; as a result, without a clear definition of the claimed “first portion” and “second portion”, they can be broadly interpreted as either full (100%) or none (0%) of the generated electric current.
Moreover, the claim language does not specific on the functionality/structure of the claimed energy assemblies, the claimed energy assemblies thus can be broadly interpreted as either a storage energy assembly or a consumed energy assembly. As a result, Thacher’s resistive load assembly reads on the claimed energy assembly in light of such interpretation. Also, the excess electrical energy in Thacher’s FIG. 3, step S109 reads on the claimed estimated amount.
Furthermore, it is general that, in a vehicle, the current generated due to braking is directed to charge a battery of the vehicle. In Brooking, such generated current during the high transient (rate) is directed to a super capacitor, and after the high transient duration, such generated current is directed to charge the battery conventionally.
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 LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights