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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 8660729 B2), herein after will be referred to as Miyazaki, in view of the 2018 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid Owner’s Manual, herein after will be referred to a Chrysler, in view of 2020 Nissan Leaf Owner’s Manual, herein after will be referred to as Nissan, and in view of Kim et al. (Maximum Power Estimation Of Lithium-Ion Batteries Accounting For Thermal And Electrical Constraints), herein after will be referred to as Kim.
Regarding Claim 1,
Miyazaki discloses An electric work vehicle (see at least “reference numeral 1 denotes a vehicle which is an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid vehicle.”[0027]: Rationale: Explicit identification of an electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle inherently satisfies “electric work vehicle” preamble, establishing claimed vehicle category precisely) configured to be driven (see at least “a motor 3 configured to drive wheels.” [0028]: Rationale: Statement that the motor drives wheels shows drivability, directly meeting the “configured to be driven” requirement for the claimed vehicle) with use of motive power (see at least “a motor 3 configured to drive wheels.” [0028]: Rationale: Driving the wheels by the motor constitutes motive power usage, satisfying the claim’s requirement that movement uses motive power) of an electric motor (see at least “a high-voltage battery 4 configured to supply electric power to this motor 3.” [0028]: Rationale: Supplying electric power from the high-voltage battery to the traction motor establishes the motor’s electric nature, meeting the limitation) configured to be supplied with electric power (see at least “a high-voltage battery 4 configured to supply electric power to this motor 3.” [0028]: Rationale: The battery’s explicit function of supplying electric power to the motor shows the motor is configured to be electrically powered) from a rechargeable battery (see at least “a battery charger 6 configured to charge the high-voltage battery 4 by using a power supply 5 outside the vehicle.” [0031]: Rationale: External charging of the high-voltage battery demonstrates rechargeability, directly satisfying “from a rechargeable battery” as claimed) having a battery voltage, (see at least “A voltage of the high-voltage battery 4 is stepped down by the DC/DC converter 8.”[0029]: Rationale: Explicit mention of the battery’s voltage confirms the battery has a voltage, fulfilling the limitation without ambiguity) the electric work vehicle comprising: a drive controller (see at least “reference numeral 2 denotes a control device for the vehicle 1.” [0027]: Rationale: The “control device 2” functions as the vehicle’s controller, corresponding directly to the claimed drive controller element): configured to control driving of the electric work vehicle (see at least “the inverter 7, the DC/DC converter 8, and the battery charger 6 are subjected to integrated control by the control device 2 for the vehicle 1.”[0031]: Rationale: Integrated control of key powertrain components evidences control of driving, matching the claim’s functional requirement) and including (a) a start determination module (see at least “a drive prohibition unit 12 configured to prohibit driving of the vehicle 1.”: [0034]: Rationale: The drive prohibition unit determines permission to drive, corresponding to a start determination module that governs start readiness) configured prohibit the electric motor from being started (see at least “a drive prohibition unit 12 configured to prohibit driving of the vehicle 1.” [0034]: Rationale: Prohibiting vehicle driving necessarily prevents motor start/energization, satisfying the claimed functional prohibition), and (b) an output limiter (see at least “significant power output limitation” and “limp-home mode driving should be permitted.” ([0007]–[0008]): Rationale: Limp-home operation necessarily limits available power, evidencing an output limiter consistent with the claimed element) configured to limit output of the electric motor (see at least “significant power output limitation.” ([0007]): Rationale: The reference explicitly states power output is limited, directly meeting the requirement to limit motor output) to a predetermined non-zero level (see at least “limp-home mode driving should be permitted.” ([0008]): Rationale: Permitted limp-home driving implies reduced but non-zero propulsion, establishing a predetermined non-zero output level); and wherein the output limiter (see at least “significant power output limitation” / “limp-home mode driving should be permitted.” ([0007]–[0008]): Rationale: The described limp-home behavior defines the output limiter’s operation referenced in subsequent conditions) limits output of the electric motor (see at least “significant power output limitation.” ([0007]): Rationale: The reference explicitly states power output is limited, directly meeting the requirement to limit motor output) to the predetermined non-zero level (see at least “limp-home mode driving should be permitted.” ([0008]): Rationale: Permitting limp-home operation implies a set, non-zero limited output level).
However, Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose limit output of the electric motor based on a drop in the battery voltage or an increase in the battery temperature; a display configured to display vehicle state information regarding the electric work vehicle and including a start permission indicator configured to indicate that the electric motor is permitted to be started; and a notification controller configured to control display in the display, wherein the notification controller generates a display control signal for the start permission indicator based on a result of the determination by the start determination module; wherein the start determination module prohibits starting of the vehicle in response to at least the battery being charged, and permits starting of the vehicle in response to the battery not being charged; and wherein the output limiter limits output of the electric motor to the predetermined non-zero level in response to least the battery voltage being a predetermined non-zero voltage threshold or under or in response to least the battery voltage being a predetermined non-zero voltage threshold or under or in response to the temperature being a predetermined temperature threshold or over, and not limit output of the electric motor in response to at least the battery voltage being over the voltage threshold and in response to the battery temperature being under the temperature threshold.
Chrysler discloses prohibit the electric motor from being started while the battery is being charged, (see at least “NOTE: The vehicle cannot be driven until it is unplugged.” (p. 189, GETTING TO KNOW YOUR INSTRUMENT PANEL: Rationale: Inability to drive while plugged in shows a charging interlock preventing readiness during charging, meeting “while … being charged.”); a display (see at least “Instrument Cluster Display.” (p. 164, “Instrument Cluster Display”): Rationale: The instrument cluster is a display used to present vehicle information, fulfilling the display element) configured to display vehicle state information regarding the electric work vehicle(see at least “Instrument Cluster Descriptions: Rationale: Showing battery state of charge demonstrates that the display presents vehicle state information, satisfying this functional requirement. The content concerns the hybrid/electric vehicle’s readiness and power state, information regarding the electric vehicle itself) and including a start permission indicator (see at least “Ready To Drive”: The vehicle will go into drive ready mode (Vehicle is Ready to Drive is indicated on the cluster), which may include the start of the engine depending on conditions such as battery state of charge and engine temperature. ” (p. 291)): Rationale: The named “Ready To Drive Indicator Light” functions as a start permission indicator, matching the claim language) configured to indicate that the electric motor is permitted to be started (see at least “will illuminate to indicate that the vehicle has enough power to be driven.” (p. 189): Rationale: Illuminating to indicate the vehicle can be driven communicates permission to start/energize the drive system); and a notification controller (see at least “the instrument cluster display will display ‘Ready to drive’ accompanied with three audible chimes.” (Index → p. 47)): Rationale: Electronics that drive display messages and chimes operate as a notification controller controlling user notifications) configured to control display in the display, (see at least “the instrument cluster display will display ‘Ready to drive’ …” (Index → p. 47): Rationale: System logic causes specific content to appear on the instrument cluster, evidencing control over the display) wherein the notification controller generates a display control signal (see at least “the instrument cluster display will display ‘Ready to drive’ …” (Index → p. 47): Rationale: Producing a specific display message requires an underlying control signal, demonstrating generation of a display control signal) for the start permission indicator (see at least “Ready To Drive Indicator Light.” (p. 189)). Rationale: The controller’s action visibly operates the “Ready To Drive Indicator Light,” which is the start permission indicator) based on a result of the determination by the start determination module;(see at least “will illuminate to indicate that the vehicle has enough power to be driven.” (p. 189): Rationale: Illumination depends on the readiness result (enough power to be driven), satisfying “based on a result.” Miyazaki discloses the determination by the start determination module (see at least “in-vehicle ECU side performs drive prohibition determination based on predetermined determination criteria.” ([0055])).Miyazaki describes a drive prohibition determination, which provides the determination result used for indicating readiness. A PHOSITA will readily integrate Miyazaki to achieve this, under KSR); wherein the start determination module prohibits starting of the vehicle in response to at least the battery being charged (see at least “NOTE: The vehicle cannot be driven until it is unplugged.” (p. 57)). Rationale: Preventing driving while plugged in prohibits entering “Ready,” functionally preventing start, meeting the limitation. Miyazaki describes a drive prohibition determination, which provides the determination result used for indicating readiness. The prohibition occurs while connected/charging, satisfying the condition “in response to … being charged.”) and permits starting of the vehicle in response to the battery not being charged (see at least NOTE: The vehicle cannot be driven until it is unplugged.” (p. 57)) and “Ready To Drive Indicator Light … will illuminate to indicate that the vehicle has enough power to be driven.” (p. 189)): Rationale: Illumination signifies permission to start and operate the vehicle. Unplugged state ends the charging interlock, permitting “Ready,” thus permitting starting when not charging)
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Miyazaki and Chrysler before them, to modify Miyazaki’s vehicle control system to include Chrysler’s charging interlock and start-permission indicator logic, such that the start determination module prohibits starting when the battery is charging, and permits starting with a corresponding indicator when the battery is not charging
However, Miyazaki and Chrysler do not disclose limit output of the electric motor based on a drop in the battery voltage or an increase in the battery temperature; limits output of the electric motor in response to least the battery voltage being a predetermined non-zero voltage threshold or under or in response to the battery temperature being a predetermined temperature threshold or over and not limit output of the electric motor in response to at least the battery voltage being over the voltage threshold and in response to the battery temperature being under the temperature threshold.
Nissan discloses limit output of the electric motor based on a drop in the battery voltage or an increase in the battery temperature (see at least “If the display indicates that the temperature of the Li-ion battery is near the red zone end…If the indicator is over the normal range, the power provided to the traction motor is reduced…Therefore, the vehicle is not as responsive when the accelerator is depressed while the power limitation light is illuminated” (2-7, “Instruments and controls”)): Rationale: High EV system temperature, including the Li-ion battery, triggers power limitation, matching the claimed temperature-based condition); limits output of the electric motor in response to least the battery voltage being a predetermined non-zero voltage threshold or under or in response to the battery temperature being a predetermined temperature threshold or over (see at least “If the display indicates that the temperature of the Li-ion battery is near the red zone end…If the indicator is over the normal range, the power provided to the traction motor is reduced…Therefore, the vehicle is not as responsive when the accelerator is depressed while the power limitation light is illuminated” (2-7, “Instruments and controls”): Rationale: Nissan explicit teaching of temperature-based power limitation embodies at least one instance of claim’s broader "or" condition. Nissan’s over the normal range" is the disclosed predetermined temperature threshold that triggers the limitation),
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Miyazaki, Chrysler, and Nissan before them, to further modify Miyazaki’s vehicle control system (as enhanced by Chrysler) by incorporating Nissan’s disclosure of output limitation logic based on battery voltage and temperature thresholds, such that the output limiter limits motor output when the battery voltage is at or below a predetermined threshold or the temperature is at or above a predetermined threshold, and does not limit output when the voltage is above the threshold and the temperature is below the threshold.
Kim discloses and not limit output of the electric motor in response to at least the battery voltage being over the voltage threshold and in response to the battery temperature being under the temperature threshold (see at least ““It is noted that all constraints are inactive initially, that is, the battery voltage, temperature and SOC do not exceed Vmin, Tmax, SOCmin respectively. Hence, the battery can provide the power requested up to 4705 second until the voltage constraint is violated.” (pg. 6 of 8: Simulation Results): Rationale: explicitly defines the state where constraints are "inactive" (i.e., voltage and temperature are within threshold (“Voltage … do not exceed V_min” means V > Vmin; “temperature … do not exceed Tmax” means T < T_max → exactly your (V > Vₜₕ) ∧ (T < Tₜₕ) condition. ) and states that in this condition, the battery provides the requested power without limitation).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim before them, to to further modify Miyazaki’s drive controller (as enhanced by Chrysler) by incorporating Nissan’s voltage/temperature-threshold derating together with Kim’s constraint-gated power-capability logic, such that the output limiter reduces motor output only when a constraint is active (V ≤ Vth or T ≥ Tth) and, conversely, refrains from derating—maintaining the predetermined non-zero output—when V > Vth and T < Tth; this would have been a predictable use of known threshold controls to protect the battery while preserving drivability, per KSR.
Regarding Claim 3,
Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim disclose all the limitations in Claim 1.
Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the display unit includes a charging indicator configured to indicate a charging state of the battery, and the charging indicator indicates normal charging while the battery is being normally charged, and indicates that the charging has abnormally ended in response to charging ending abnormally.
However, Chrysler discloses wherein the display (see at least Pg. 166, Getting to Know Your Instrument Panel: The Instrument Cluster Display) includes a charging indicator (see at least Pg. 33, Getting to know your vehicle: Instrument Cluster High Voltage Battery Display) configured to indicate a charging state of the battery (See at least Pg. 33, Getting to know your vehicle: The battery display will display the current state of charge for the high voltage battery), and the charging indicator indicates normal charging while the battery is being normally charged (see at least Pg. 34, Getting to know your vehicle: The state of charge indicator is made up of five lights that are mounted to the top center of the instrument panel, which will illuminate when the vehicle is plugged into the EVSE. See Number of Indicator Light Illuminated vs Percentage of Battery Charge), and indicates that the charging has abnormally ended in response to charging ending abnormally (see at least Pg. 34, Getting to know your vehicle:…It’s also used to indicate a charging problem…In the event of an error in the charging process the outer two lights will blink; The charge-port LED array is part of the vehicle’s display unit. It serves as a charging indicator: sequential illumination denotes normal charging, while a repeated outer-LED blink explicitly signals that charging has abnormally ended).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim before them, to incorporate Chrysler’s charging-status indicator scheme (normal-progress and error indication) into Miyazaki’s EV control architecture to provide clear, real-time feedback about charging state and failures, thereby improving operator safety and usability. Doing so is a straightforward substitution of a well-known, field-tested HMI element into a known EV control system, yielding the predictable result of clearer status communication during charging (KSR: combining familiar elements according to known methods).
Regarding Claim 4,
Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim disclose all the limitations in Claim 1.
However, Miyazaki does not disclose wherein the display unit includes: an electric drive warning indicator configured to indicate an error in an electric drive system; and a vehicle state warning indicator configured to indicate a vehicle state error.
Chrysler discloses the display (see at least Pg. 166, Getting to Know Your Instrument Panel: The Instrument Cluster Display) includes: an electric drive warning indicator (see at least Pg. 182, GETTING TO KNOW YOUR INSTRUMENT PANEL: Hybrid Electric Vehicle System Service Light) configured to indicate an error in an electric drive system (see at least Pg. 182, Getting To Know Your Instrument Panel: This indicator will illuminate when service to the hybrid electric system is needed. It will be accompanied by a Service Hybrid Electric Vehicle System message in the cluster); and a vehicle state warning indicator (see at least Pg. 182, Getting to Know Your Instrument Panel: Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) Warning Light) configured to indicate a vehicle state error (see at least Pg. 182, Getting to Know Your Instrument Panel: If the light continues to flash when the vehicle is running, immediate service is required and you may experience reduced performance, an elevated/rough idle, or engine stall and your vehicle may require towing; Under the broadest reasonable-interpretation standard (see In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004)), the Electronic Throttle Control warning lamp—automatically illuminated or flashed on ETC malfunctions—constitutes the claimed “vehicle-state warning indicator,” because it unmistakably reports a non-traction vehicle fault, thus satisfying Claim 4’s second limitation under normal vehicle operation).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim before them, to provide clear operator-facing fault communication for detected EV and vehicle-state errors, a PHOSITA would map Miyazaki’s existing ECU fault/derate determinations to Chrysler’s established Hybrid Electric Vehicle System Service and ETC warning tell-tales—a routine, field-tested HMI substitution in the same art that predictably improves safety, diagnostics, and uptime without altering control logic (KSR: combining familiar elements to yield expected results).
Regarding Claim 5,
Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim disclose all the limitations in Claim 1.
However, Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose the display unit includes: a remaining battery capacity indicator configured to indicate a remaining battery capacity of the battery; and a battery temperature indicator configured to indicate a temperature of the battery.
Chrysler discloses the display (see at least Pg. 166, Getting to Know Your Instrument Panel: The Instrument Cluster Display) includes: a remaining battery capacity indicator (see at least pg. 33, Getting To Know Your Vehicle: Instrument Cluster High Voltage Battery Display) configured to indicate a remaining battery capacity of the battery (see at least pg. 33, Getting To Know Your Vehicle: There is a battery display indicator located on the instrument cluster. The battery display will display the current state of charge for the high voltage battery; with the percentage value located to the left of the symbol).
Nissan further discloses a battery temperature indicator (see at least EV-25, EV Overview: Li-ion battery temperature gauge) configured to indicate a temperature of the battery (see at least EV-25, EV Overview: This gauge displays the temperature of the Li-ion battery).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim before them, to modify Miyazaki’s electric vehicle with Chrysler’s instrument-cluster display and Nissan’s Li-ion temperature gauge to provide unified start-permission, state-of-charge, and battery-temperature indications—standard CAN-bus modules that integrate without redesign, deliver well-recognized safety and range-management benefits, and thus represent the predictable, routine optimization endorsed by KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6,
Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim disclose all the limitations in Claim 1.
However, Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose the display includes an output limitation indicator configured to indicate an output limitation while the electric motor is subjected to the output limitation.
Chrysler discloses the display (see at least Pg. 166 Getting to Know Your Instrument Panel: The Instrument Cluster Display) includes an output limitation indicator (see at least Pg. 183, Getting to know your instrument panel: Torque Limited Warning Light) configured to indicate an output limitation while the electric motor is subjected to the output limitation (see at least Pg. 183, Getting to know your instrument panel: …illuminates when vehicle acceleration is limited due to a reduction in engine or electric motor performance).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim before them, to modify Miyazaki's electric vehicle with Chrysler’s instrument cluster notification system to indicate vehicle output limitation status clearly. This combination would yield predictable safety improvements, aligning with standard automotive industry practices (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 416).
Regarding Claim 7,
Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim disclose all the limitations in Claim 1.
However, Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose the notification controller notifies an operator of information that is to be given to the operator, with use of audio via an audio notification device.
Chrysler discloses the notification controller (see at least Pg. 166 Getting to Know Your Instrument Panel: The Instrument Cluster Display) notifies an operator of information that is to be given to the operator, with use of audio via an audio notification device (see at least Pg. 47, Getting To Know Your Vehicle: The instrument cluster display will display “Ready to drive” accompanied with three audible chimes: Chrysler’s instrument-cluster controller (notification controller) automatically triggers three audible chimes each time it presents the “READY TO DRIVE” message, thereby providing the claimed audio notification to the operator through the vehicle’s built-in chime speaker (audio notification device). This fully satisfies Claim 7).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan, and Kim before them, to modify Miyazaki's electric vehicle with Chrysler’s instrument cluster notification system to indicate an audible status to the operator. This combination would yield predictable safety improvements, aligning with standard automotive industry practices (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 416).
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed 08/05/2025 have been fully considered.
Examiner Response to “Matters of Claim Interpretation”
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s claim-construction arguments and agrees with Applicant as follows:
Applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Consistent with Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and MPEP § 2181, § 112(f) applies when a claim term, in context, recites a function without connoting sufficiently definite structure to a PHOSITA. While the “means” presumption is informative, it is not dispositive; analysis turns on whether the term is a structural term or a nonce placeholder.
“start determination module”
The Examiner agrees that “module” is used here as a generic, nonce descriptor and, in this context, does not itself connote definite structure. Accordingly, “start determination module” is construed under § 112(f). Its scope is limited to the corresponding structure and linked algorithm described in the specification for performing the recited function (and statutory equivalents).
“drive controller” and “notification controller”
The Examiner agrees with Applicant that “controller”—as used in the automotive control arts—connotes structure (e.g., an ECU/microcontroller-based control unit with known hardware/firmware implementing vehicular control and display signaling). In view of the claims and the specification’s description of these controllers within the vehicle’s control architecture, the terms do not operate as nonce placeholders. Therefore, § 112(f) does not apply to “drive controller” or “notification controller.” These terms will be given their plain and ordinary structural meaning to a PHOSITA in this art.
“indicator” (including “start permission indicator,” charging indicator, output limitation indicator, etc.)
The Office also agrees that “indicator” terms, as used here, recite concrete display hardware (e.g., instrument-cluster tell-tales/LEDs/segments) and thus convey definite structure. Accordingly, § 112(f) does not apply to the “indicator” terms; they will be construed under their plain and ordinary meaning.
Claim Interpretation Conclusion
The Examiner maintains § 112(f) only for “start determination module” and will apply the corresponding-structure/algorithm disclosed in the specification (and statutory equivalents).
The Examiner withdraws any § 112(f) interpretation previously applied to “drive controller,” “notification controller,” and “indicator” terms. These will be treated as structural under their plain and ordinary meaning to a PHOSITA.
No new matter or indefiniteness issues are raised by adopting Applicant’s constructions.
This construction will be applied in evaluating patentability on the merits in the accompanying prior-art analysis.
Examiner Response to Applicant’s §101 Argument
The Office has reconsidered the §101 rejection in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
1. Eligibility Analysis (MPEP §2106; 2019 Revised Guidance)
Step 1 (Statutory Category).
Amended claim 1 is drawn to a machine—“an electric work vehicle”—comprising specific hardware (drive controller, start determination module, output limiter, display with indicators, and a notification controller with audio output). Claims 3–7 depend therefrom. Thus, the claims satisfy a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial Exception Recitation).
As amended, the claims do not recite a mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, or a mental process. The limitations prohibit starting of the vehicle while charging and limit traction-motor output to a predetermined non-zero level based on battery voltage/temperature thresholds. These are physical control actions over vehicle hardware, not steps performable in the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application).
Even to the extent some limitations involve presenting status information (indicators/chimes), the claims integrate any such presentation into a practical application: the vehicle’s operating state is physically changed (start permission inhibited/permitted; motor output derated vs. normal) based on sensed battery conditions, with coordinated notifications to the operator. This constitutes a specific technological implementation in an EV powertrain/HMI context.
Step 2B (Inventive Concept).
Because eligibility is established under Step 2A (integration into a practical application), Step 2B need not be reached. Alternatively, the recited coupling of control logic to physical vehicle actuation (start interlock; thermal/voltage-based derating) reflects more than generic data reporting.
Conclusion on §101.
Applicant’s amendment and argument are persuasive. The §101 rejection is withdrawn as to amended claims 1 and 3–7 (claim 2 is canceled).
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s §103 Arguments
Summary:Applicant contends that amended independent claim 1 overcomes the prior art because (i) Miyazaki’s “prohibit drive” cannot satisfy both the start determination module and the output limiter, and (ii) the art does not teach or suggest limiting output to a predetermined non-zero level based on battery-voltage drop or battery-temperature rise. Applicant further asserts that the newly added “no-limit” condition (voltage over threshold and temperature under threshold) is not taught. For the reasons below, the rejections are maintained. The combination of Miyazaki with Chrysler and Nissan renders claim 1 obvious; and the explicit “no-limit” negative limitation is supported by Kim and is, in any event, the obvious complement to Nissan’s threshold-based derating.
1) Miyazaki, Chrysler, Nissan (and Kim) teach the disputed limitations under BRI
(a) Start determination module that prohibits start while charging
Chrysler expressly teaches a charging interlock: “The vehicle cannot be driven until it is unplugged” and that the instrument cluster will not display READY with EVSE connected (e.g., pp. 57, 189, and “Ready to drive” logic at p. 47, p. 189).
Miyazaki provides the drive controller and drive prohibition determination (e.g., [0031], [0034], [0055]).KSR permits using Chrysler’s well-known charging interlock/HMI with Miyazaki’s controller to yield the predictable, safety-driven result of prohibiting start while charging (MPEP 2143, KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417–22).
(b) Output limiter to a predetermined non-zero level
Miyazaki teaches “significant power output limitation” and “limp-home mode driving should be permitted” ( [0007]–[0008]), which is a controller-effected derate to a non-zero level (permitted driving). Under BRI (MPEP 2111), “predetermined non-zero level” does not require a numeric value; a calibrated limp-home torque/power satisfies it.
(c) Voltage/temperature-based triggers for limiting
Nissan teaches reducing power when Li-ion battery available charge is extremely low and when EV system temperature (including the Li-ion battery) is high (e.g., 2-7, EV-25), and explains that power provided to the traction motor is reduced and responsiveness decreases. This is exactly battery-voltage/temperature threshold-based derating. Applicant’s complaint that Miyazaki alone lacks these triggers is immaterial; they are taught by Nissan and properly combined under KSR.
(d) Explicit “no-limit” (negative) condition
The amendment newly added: “and not limit output … when the battery voltage is over the voltage threshold and the battery temperature is under the temperature threshold.”
Kim (newly cited in the Final) expressly teaches constraint-gated control in which, when constraints are inactive (voltage above V_min; temperature below T_max), “the battery can provide the power requested” (Simulation Results, p. 6 of 8). This expressly maps to the claimed “no-limit” state.
Independently, the “no-limit” state is the obvious complement of Nissan’s threshold-triggered derating: if the controller limits when V ≤ V_th or T ≥ T_th, then when not so, the controller does not limit. See MPEP 2112 (inherency/necessity of result), In re Applied Materials, 692 F.3d 1289, 1295–96 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (functional conditions imply their logical complement).
2) Rebuttal to Applicant’s specific arguments
“The same structure cannot satisfy separate claim elements.”
This is incorrectly applying a legal standard from 102 to a 103 rejection. Obviousness may rely on one reference for multiple limitations and use multiple references for one limitation. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (references must be read for what they fairly teach; cannot attack references individually); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (combination can use known elements for their known functions). Under BRI, “module/controller” functions may be implemented in software within a single ECU or distributed—neither the claims nor the art requires physically distinct hardware blocks.
“Miyazaki’s ‘power output limitation’ might be uncontrollable.”
Miyazaki’s limitation is a controller-effected derate within a vehicle control device ( [0027], [0031], [0034]). It is not a passive failure; it is an ECU-driven limp-home strategy that permits driving at reduced power—i.e., a controlled, predetermined non-zero output level. Even if Miyazaki alone lacked explicit triggers, Nissan supplies the voltage/temperature thresholds, and KSR condones combining familiar elements to achieve predictable results.
“Art does not teach limiting based on voltage drop or temperature rise.”
Nissan squarely teaches both: low available charge (voltage proxy) and high EV/battery temperature trigger reduced traction-motor power (e.g., 2-7, EV-25). Applicant’s insistence on numeric thresholds is misplaced; the claims merely require “predetermined … threshold”, which Nissan’s condition flags necessarily embody (calibrated by the ECU).
“New negative limitation (‘no-limit’) is not taught.”
As explained, Kim expressly teaches the no-limitation state when constraints are inactive (V > V_min; T < T_max). Introduction of Kim in the Final was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment and is proper under MPEP 706.07(a). Moreover, the no-limit condition follows necessarily from Nissan’s threshold logic.
3) Reasons to combine and reasonable expectation of success (KSR; MPEP 2143)
Safety & HMI predictability (Chrysler + Miyazaki): Adding Chrysler’s charging interlock and READY/indicator/chimes to Miyazaki’s controller enhances operator awareness and prevents drive-off while tethered—predictable improvement using well-known EV HMI.
Battery protection & performance (Nissan + Miyazaki): Applying Nissan’s voltage/temperature triggers to Miyazaki’s limp-home limiter is a routine EV control to protect components and ensure drivability.
Constraint-gated control (Kim): Incorporating Kim’s no-limit when constraints inactive is a textbook complement to threshold control, confirming what a PHOSITA would implement.
Implementation: All are ECU/CAN domain features with routine message mapping; success would be reasonably expected (MPEP 2143, 2144).
4) Disposition of the claims
Claim 1: Obvious over Miyazaki + Chrysler + Nissan, further supported by Kim for the explicit “no-limit” condition.
Claims 3–4, 6–7: Each adds conventional EV HMI features (charging status with abnormal end; subsystem warning tell-tales; output-limitation indicator; audible chimes) disclosed by Chrysler and Nissan and obvious to integrate with Miyazaki’s controller (predictable HMI substitution).
Claim 5: Obvious over Miyazaki + Chrysler + Nissan (remaining capacity/SOC indicator; battery temperature gauge).
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the §103 rejections. The rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–7 over Miyazaki in view of Chrysler (with Kim supporting the negative limitation in claim 1), and of claim 5 over Miyazaki in view of Chrysler and further in view of Nissan, are maintained.
Conclusion
After full consideration of Applicant’s remarks, the rejections of claims 1 and 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained. The § 101 rejections are withdrawn, and the Office adopts Applicant’s proposed constructions of “drive controller,” “notification controller,” and “indicator.” Even under these adopted constructions, Applicant has not rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness.
A PHOSITA would have combined Miyazaki’s EV control architecture with Chrysler’s charging interlock/“ready-to-drive” HMI and Nissan’s battery-protection derating, further confirmed by Kim’s constraint-gated control, to address well-known safety, usability, and reliability objectives. This combination involves routine ECU/HMI integration in the same field and would have presented a reasonable expectation of success. The results are predictable—precisely the kind of “combining familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” that is obvious under KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); see MPEP §§ 2141, 2143.
Applicant’s hindsight argument is unpersuasive: the problem (safe start/drive readiness and battery protection) was known, and each reference teaches a recognized sub-solution. The newly added “no-limit” condition is the necessary complement to threshold-based derating and is expressly taught by Kim’s disclosure that when constraints (voltage/temperature) are inactive, full requested power is provided. No persuasive evidence of secondary considerations has been presented to overcome the prima facie case.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 3–7 remain unpatentable over the art of record. The application is not in condition for allowance.
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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights