DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 19 August 2026. Applicant amended claims 1 and 11. Applicant did not cancel or add new claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0274028) in view of Ogawa, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0028981).
For claim 1, Payne discloses a smart power control apparatus, comprising: a map providing device configured to transmit map data including slope information (see para. 0043); and a controller connected with the navigation device and the map providing device (see Fig. 1, #106), wherein the controller is configured to: apply at least one of a limit to a battery state of charge (SOC) fluctuation range, an adjustment to a battery charge and discharge rate, or a combination thereof based on the determined level of the driving route reliability to perform a smart power control (see paras. 0049, 0071, 0080-0082; known/predicted routes apply one control strategy).
Payne does not explicitly teach a navigation device to transmit navigation information. However, Payne teaches monitoring location, current route and route history using a GPS signal (see paras. 0025-0031, 0044). Official Notice is taken in that navigation devices were well known in the art at the effective date of filing. Navigation devices have the ability to determine location and monitor routes. Although not explicit, a navigation device could be used to perform the noted functions of Payne. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Payne to include a navigation device based on the reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve calculating, using a processor, an optimal discharge rate for the known driving route, and applying, using the processor, the optimal discharge rate of the vehicle to each segment of the route (see abstract).
Payne does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations. A teaching from Ogawa discloses to determine a level of driving route reliability for a driving route (see para. 0043, route reliability determined by user confirmation) in front of a vehicle based on at least one of: (i) whether a main path and a sub-path exist on the driving route, (ii) whether a destination is set based on the navigation information, or (iii) whether a slope difference exist between the main path and the sub-path based on the slope information (see paras. 0157-0160); and wherein the driving route reliability refers to reliability of the slope information of the driving route (see paras. 0157-0160). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Payne to include the teachings of Ogawa based on the reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve a control apparatus for a hybrid vehicle, which is able to reduce the possibility of executing unnecessary support control or the possibility of not executing necessary support control by enabling a more accurate search for a downhill section in a scheduled travel route of the hybrid vehicle (see para. 0015).
Referring to claim 2, Payne further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the level of the driving route reliability as a third level when the vehicle travels after a destination is set, when there is only a main path on the driving route, when there is no sub-path having a slope opposite to a slope of the main path, or when there is a combination thereof (see para. 0066, “known” equivalent to third level; it is interpreted that at least one route exists in Payne that would lack a sub-path having an opposite slope to the main path).
Regarding claim 3, Payne further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the level of the driving route reliability as a second level when a slope of a main path on the driving route is identical to a slope of a first-level sub-path branching from the main path and is opposite to a slope of a second-level sub-path branching from the first-level sub-path, when the driving route is a previously stored recurring driving route, or when there is a combination thereof (see para. 0066, recurring equivalent to “known”).
With regards to claim 4, Payne further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the level of the driving route reliability as a first level when the vehicle travels after a destination is not set (see para. 0085, new). Payne does not explicitly disclose the next two limitations.
However, it is logical and well within reason that at least one route in Payne would have an intersection within the route and the branching path may slope opposite the main path that has yet to be travelled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Payne to include consideration of grades branching from the main path (or on the other side of the intersection) that are opposite from the main path based on the reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve calculating, using a processor, an optimal discharge rate for the known driving route, and applying, using the processor, the optimal discharge rate of the vehicle to each segment of the route (see abstract).
Continuing with the claim, Payne further teaches when the slope of the main path is not identical to a slope of a first-level sub- path branching from the main path but is not identical to a slope of a second-level sub-path branching from the first-level sub- path (see para. 0085, implicit with “new” determination), and when the driving route does not correspond to a previously stored recurring driving route (see para. 0085, implicit with “new” determination).
For claim 11, the claimed elements and subject matter are substantially similar to the subject matter as recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 1.
For claim 12, the claimed elements and subject matter are substantially similar to the subject matter as recited in claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 2.
For claim 13, the claimed elements and subject matter are substantially similar to the subject matter as recited in claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 3.
For claim 14, the claimed elements and subject matter are substantially similar to the subject matter as recited in claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 4.
Claims 5-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0274028) and Ogawa, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0028981), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in view of Lerner, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0266912).
For claim 5, Payne discloses wherein the controller is configured to: calculate SOC consumption according to a slope for each road segment (see paras. 0051-0052); determine to enter a power control mode based on the SOC consumption according to the slope for each road segment (see paras. 0051-0052); determine a required amount of charge using the SOC consumption according to the slope for each road segment (see paras. 0051-0052); calculate an amount of power generation using the required amount of charge (see para. 0066); and control charging and discharging of a battery based on the amount of power generation (see paras. 0066-0068). Payne does explicitly disclose stack power generation.
A teaching from Lerner discloses operation of a hydrogen powered vehicle and the associated stack power generation (see paras. 0024, 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Payne to include the teachings of Lerner based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve objective of the battery load is to consume and/or store any energy that otherwise would have been wasted (see para. 0025).
With regards to claim 6, Payne further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: determine to enter an uphill condition control mode for power control in an uphill condition, when the SOC consumption according to the slope for each road segment meets an uphill condition control initiation criterion (see para. 0051, operation changes based on upcoming hill, it is implicit that determination and initiation occur); and determine to enter a downhill condition control mode for power control in a downhill condition, when the SOC consumption according to the slope for each road segment meets a downhill condition control initiation criterion (see para. 0071, operation changes based on upcoming descent, it is implicit that determination and initiation occur).
Referring to claim 7, Payne further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine a time point when the vehicle enters a road segment closest to the vehicle among road segments meeting the uphill condition control initiation criterion and the downhill condition control initiation criterion as a power control release time point (see paras. 0060-0061, slope accounted for; para. 0066).
With reference to claim 8, Payne discloses a controller to control power generation based on the amount of power generation (see paras. 0051-0052, 0066, 0071) and charge the battery with electrical energy. Lerner discloses operation of a fuel cell stack.
For claim 9, Lerner discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the amount of stack power generation as resistor consumption, when the amount of stack power generation is a negative number (see para. 0013).
Referring to claim 10, Lerner further discloses wherein the controller is configured to control a resistor to consume electrical energy stored in the battery based on the resistor consumption (see para. 0013).
For claim 15, the claimed elements and subject matter are substantially similar to the subject matter as recited in claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 5.
For claim 16, the claimed elements and subject matter are substantially similar to the subject matter as recited in claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 6.
For claim 17, the claimed elements and subject matter are substantially similar to the subject matter as recited in claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 7.
For claim 18, the claimed elements and subject matter are substantially similar to the subject matter as recited in claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 8.
For claim 19, the claimed elements and subject matter are substantially similar to the subject matter as recited in claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 9.
For claim 20, the claimed elements and subject matter are substantially similar to the subject matter as recited in claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 10.
Conclusion
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights