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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Therein, Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 17 September 2025. Applicant amended claims 1-4 and 11-14. Applicant did not cancel or add new claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. A request for the Office to electronically retrieve the document on which priority is claimed has been filed on 21 October 2025. The priority documents have not yet been received.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and related arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose the newly amended claim limitations. Examiner does not agree.
The newly amended claim language recites “determine a level of driving route reliability for a driving route 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”.
The prior art of Payne teaches that candidate routes and the segments making up the routes are given route weights (see paras. 0041-0042, 0044). From there, the system selects the predicted route from the highest weight. Next, a user may indicate confirmation of whether the predicted route is correct (see para. 0043). This teaching reads on the claimed limitation “(ii) whether a destination is set based on the navigation information”.
The limitation is taught by the prior art based on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the segments of the route are made up of navigational information from the GPS (with examples provided in para. 0044). Further, as the route is presented to a user, one of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that a route requires a destination or an end of the route. It is also assumed that for the segment/route to be predicted, it must first be known. So therefore, when a user provides confirmation to the predicted route, the system is determining a level of reliability (indicated by the confirmation – that it is “reliable”) based on the route/destination and segments therebetween being set on the navigation information (due to the highest route weights and taken from the GPS). If this predicted route is confirmed by the user, a limit to a battery state is applied based on the reliability (see para. 0049, “the battery discharge rate and/or limit may be altered, between certain rates, if the route is known”).
The prior art of Payne teaches “determine a level of driving route reliability for a driving route 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”.
The rejection is maintained with the current prior art of record.
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).
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: 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 para. 0043-0044, GPS provides navigation information to determine segments made of navigation identifiers; see paras. 0041-0042, 0044, navigation information determines route weight for route confirmation, route implicitly includes destination; thus, reliability of route determined/confirmed if predicted/known route based on GPS/navigational information); and 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).
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), 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.
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