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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 11 and 20, the phrase “controlling . . . power electronics comprising an inverter or a DC/DC conversion device of the onboard electrical system with a reduced efficiency such that electrical energy is converted into heat within . . . the inverter or DC/DC conversion device, and such that the presently required power loss is attained” is considered new matter. The original specification discloses that “[t]he drive system comprises for example power electronics and optionally an inverter or a DC/DC conversion device” (see ¶ 0027). The specification further discloses that the power electronics are represented by reference numeral (32) (see ¶ 0062; FIG. 1), and discloses that the DC/DC converter is a separate element represented by reference numeral (36) (see FIG. 1). Thus, the DC/DC converter and the inverter are disclosed in the specification as being elements separate from the power electronics.
Furthermore, while the specification discloses that “the power electronics 32 can be controlled with a poorer efficiency, such that an increased electrical resistance occurs here, too, which likewise results in heat loss” (see ¶ 0070), there is no such disclosure regarding a reduced efficiency operation of the DC/DC converter or the inverter.
Furthermore, while the power electronics can divert electrical energy through the DC/DC conversion device or the inverter such that these devices would naturally generate heat, there is no disclosure that a sufficient amount of heat would be generated at these components “such that the presently required power loss is attained” as claimed.
In view of the above, the phrase “controlling . . . power electronics comprising an inverter or a DC/DC conversion device of the onboard electrical system with a reduced efficiency such that electrical energy is converted into heat within . . . the inverter or DC/DC conversion device, and such that the presently required power loss is attained” is considered new matter.
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 11-13, 16, 19-22, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semsey et al. (US 2016/0082843) in view of Gale et al. (US 6,121,740) and further in view of Ritter (US 2011/0208901).
Regarding claim 11, Semsey discloses a method for braking an electrically driven vehicle comprising a drive energy store (200) (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2), an onboard electrical system (150, 162, 190) connected to the drive energy store (see FIG. 2), an electrical drive motor (120) that is usable as a generator (see ¶¶ 0052, 0053), and at least one additional braking device (300) that is separate from the electrical drive motor (see ¶ 0087), the method comprising: detecting a braking intention with a presently required braking torque (see ¶¶ 0022, 0023); determining a present maximum charging power of the drive energy store (see ¶ 0046); determining a present maximum power loss that is generable in the electrical drive motor and/or in the onboard electrical system (see ¶¶ 0033, 0075); determining a presently required power loss resulting from a difference between the present maximum charging power and a maximum recuperation power of the electrical drive motor for the presently required braking torque (see ¶¶ 0028, 0029); determining a present additional braking torque that is to be applied by the additional braking device from a difference between the presently required braking torque and a braking torque of the electrical drive motor resulting from the present maximum charging power and the present maximum power loss that can be applied (see ¶ 0048); controlling the electrical drive motor and/or the onboard electrical system with a reduced efficiency such that the presently required power loss is attained (see ¶¶ 0028, 0029, 0048); and actuating the additional braking device such that the present additional braking torque is applied by the additional braking device (see ¶ 0048).
Semsey does not disclose controlling the electrical drive motor and/or power electronics comprising an inverter or a DC/DC conversion device of the onboard electrical system with a reduced efficiency such that electrical energy is converted into heat within the electrical drive motor and/or the inverter or DC/DC conversion device, and such that the presently required power loss is attained.
Gale teaches a method for braking an electrically driven vehicle comprising a drive energy store (12) and an electrical drive motor (22), the method comprising controlling the electrical drive motor with a reduced efficiency (see FIG. 3, step (107); see also col. 5, lines 41-54) such that electrical energy is converted into heat within the electrical drive motor (see col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 13), and such that the presently required power loss is attained (see col. 5, lines 46-53).
It would have been obvious to combine the step of controlling the electric motor with a reduced efficiency with the method of Semsey to increase the amount of electrical power losses that are capable of being generated in the event of a fully charged or near fully charged battery, thereby increasing capacity of the electrical braking system (see e.g. Gale, col. 1, line 54 to col. 2, line 20).
Semsey does not disclose that the vehicle is a motorcycle.
Ritter teaches a method for braking an electrically driven vehicle comprising a drive energy store (see Abstract, FIG. 1), wherein the method can be implemented on vehicles including automobiles, vans, motorcycles and class 8 trucks (see ¶ 0009).
It would have been obvious to implement the braking method of Semsey on a motorcycle to expand the types of known vehicles that the regenerative braking system can be applied to (see e.g. Ritter, ¶ 0009).
Regarding claim 12, Semsey discloses detecting the presently required braking torque, the present maximum charging power of the drive energy store, and the present maximum power loss at predefined time intervals (see ¶¶ 0022, 0023, 0028, 0029, 0046, 0048; the required braking torque, present maximum charging power and present maximum power loss are detected during a control algorithm that has predefined processing intervals).
Regarding claim 13, Semsey discloses limiting the present maximum charging power according to a predefined power consumption reserve (see ¶ 0046).
Regarding claim 16, Semsey discloses a friction brake and/or an eddy current brake as the additional braking device (see ¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 19, Semsey discloses braking at least one driven wheel of the motorcycle exclusively without the use of the additional friction brake (see ¶ 0048, friction brake is not activated unless necessary, thereby indicating braking exclusive of the friction braking).
Regarding claim 20, Semsey discloses an electrically driven vehicle comprising a drive energy store (200) (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2), an onboard electrical system (150, 162, 190) connected to the drive energy store (see FIG. 2), an electrical drive motor (120) that is usable as a generator (see ¶¶ 0052, 0053), and at least one additional braking device (300) that is separate from the electrical drive motor (see ¶ 0087), and a control unit (150) configured to: detect a braking intention with a presently required braking torque (see ¶¶ 0022, 0023); determine a present maximum charging power of the drive energy store (see ¶ 0046); determine a present maximum power loss that is generable in the electrical drive motor and/or in the onboard electrical system (see ¶¶ 0033, 0075); determine a presently required power loss resulting from a difference between the present maximum charging power and a maximum recuperation power of the electrical drive motor for the presently required braking torque (see ¶¶ 0028, 0029); determine a present additional braking torque that is to be applied by the additional braking device from a difference between the presently required braking torque and a braking torque of the electrical drive motor resulting from the present maximum charging power and the present maximum power loss that can be applied (see ¶ 0048); control the electrical drive motor and/or the onboard electrical system with a reduced efficiency such that the presently required power loss is attained (see ¶¶ 0028, 0029, 0048); and actuate the additional braking device such that the present additional braking torque is applied by the additional braking device (see ¶ 0048).
Semsey does not disclose that the control unit is configured to control the electrical drive motor and/or power electronics comprising an inverter or a DC/DC conversion device of the onboard electrical system with a reduced efficiency such that electrical energy is converted into heat within the electrical drive motor and/or the inverter or DC/DC conversion device, and such that the presently required power loss is attained.
Gale teaches an electrically driven vehicle comprising a drive energy store (12), an electrical drive motor (22), and a control unit (24), wherein the control unit is configured to control the electrical drive motor with a reduced efficiency (see FIG. 3, step (107); see also col. 5, lines 41-54) such that electrical energy is converted into heat within the electrical drive motor (see col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 13), and such that the presently required power loss is attained (see col. 5, lines 46-53).
It would have been obvious to configure the control unit of Semsey to control the electric motor with a reduced efficiency, as taught by Gale, to increase the amount of electrical power losses that are capable of being generated in the event of a fully charged or near fully charged battery, thereby increasing capacity of the electrical braking system (see e.g. Gale, col. 1, line 54 to col. 2, line 20).
Semsey does not disclose that the vehicle is a motorcycle.
Ritter teaches a method for braking an electrically driven vehicle comprising a drive energy store (see Abstract, FIG. 1), wherein the method can be implemented on vehicles including automobiles, vans, motorcycles and class 8 trucks (see ¶ 0009).
It would have been obvious to implement the braking method of Semsey on a motorcycle to expand the types of known vehicles that the regenerative braking system can be applied to (see e.g. Ritter, ¶ 0009).
Regarding claim 21, Semsey discloses the control unit is configured to detect the presently required braking torque, the present maximum charging power of the drive energy store, and the present maximum power loss at predefined time intervals (see ¶¶ 0022, 0023, 0028, 0029, 0046, 0048; the required braking torque, present maximum charging power and present maximum power loss are detected during a control algorithm that has predefined processing intervals).
Regarding claim 22, Semsey discloses the control unit is configured to limit the present maximum charging power according to a predefined power consumption reserve (see ¶ 0046).
Regarding claim 25, Semsey discloses a friction brake and/or an eddy current brake as the additional braking device (see ¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 28, Semsey discloses that the control unit is configured to brake at least one driven wheel of the motorcycle exclusively without the use of the additional friction brake (see ¶ 0048, friction brake is not activated unless necessary, thereby indicating braking exclusive of the friction braking).
Claims 14, 15, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semsey et al. (US 2016/0082843) in view of Gale et al. (US 6,121,740) and Ritter (US 2011/0208901), as applied to claims 11 and 20, above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2020/0369156).
Regarding claim 14, Semsey does not disclose that the present maximum power loss is influenced by a present maximum power consumption of a low-voltage energy store, which is provided in addition to the drive energy store and is fed from the drive energy store.
Moon teaches a regenerative brake system (see Abstract, FIG. 1), wherein a present maximum power loss is influenced by a present maximum power consumption of a low-voltage energy store (14) (see ¶ 0039), which is provided in addition to the drive energy store and is fed from the drive energy store (see FIG. 1, ¶ 0026).
It would have been obvious to combine the low-voltage energy store of Moon with the device of Semsey to provide an increased regenerative braking capacity (see e.g. Moon, ¶ 0007).
Regarding claim 15, Moon teaches that in order to increase the present maximum power loss, a charging voltage of the low-voltage energy store is increased to a present maximum (see ¶¶ 0010, 0042).
Regarding claim 23, Semsey does not disclose that the present maximum power loss is influenced by a present maximum power consumption of a low-voltage energy store, which is provided in addition to the drive energy store and is fed from the drive energy store.
Moon teaches a regenerative brake system (see Abstract, FIG. 1), wherein a present maximum power loss is influenced by a present maximum power consumption of a low-voltage energy store (14) (see ¶ 0039), which is provided in addition to the drive energy store and is fed from the drive energy store (see FIG. 1, ¶ 0026).
It would have been obvious to combine the low-voltage energy store of Moon with the device of Semsey to provide an increased regenerative braking capacity (see e.g. Moon, ¶ 0007).
Regarding claim 24, Moon teaches that in order to increase the present maximum power loss, a charging voltage of the low-voltage energy store is increased to a present maximum (see ¶¶ 0010, 0042).
Claims 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semsey et al. (US 2016/0082843) in view of Gale et al. (US 6,121,740) and Ritter (US 2011/0208901), as applied to claims 11, 16, 20 and 25, above, and further in view of Bramscher et al. (US 2012/0067676).
Regarding claim 17, Semsey does not disclose that the additional braking device is a hydraulic brake of an anti-lock braking system (ABS) device or an electromechanical parking brake.
Bramscher teaches a regenerative brake system (see Abstract) comprising an additional braking device that is a hydraulic brake of an anti-lock braking system (ABS) (see ¶¶ 0017, 0018).
It would have been obvious to configure the additional brake of Semsey to be a part of an anti-lock braking system to improve the safety of the brake system by preventing the vehicle wheels from locking.
Regarding claim 26, Semsey does not disclose that the additional braking device is a hydraulic brake of an anti-lock braking system (ABS) device or an electromechanical parking brake.
Bramscher teaches a regenerative brake system (see Abstract) comprising an additional braking device that is a hydraulic brake of an anti-lock braking system (ABS) (see ¶¶ 0017, 0018).
It would have been obvious to configure the additional brake of Semsey to be a part of an anti-lock braking system to improve the safety of the brake system by preventing the vehicle wheels from locking.
Claims 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semsey et al. (US 2016/0082843) in view of Gale et al. (US 6,121,740) and Ritter (US 2011/0208901), as applied to claims 11, 16, 20 and 25, above, and further in view of Gluck (US 2019/0241077).
Regarding claim 18, Semsey does not disclose that the eddy current brake is arranged on a brake disk of a hydraulic or electromechanical brake, and/or a rotating body in the drive system of the electrical drive motor is used for induction of eddy currents and is used as the eddy current brake.
Gluck teaches a regenerative brake system (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising an additional brake (3) configured as an eddy brake (see ¶ 0035), wherein the eddy current brake is arranged on a brake disk of a hydraulic or electromechanical brake, and/or a rotating body in the drive system of the electrical drive motor is used for induction of eddy currents and is used as the eddy current brake (see FIG. 1; ¶¶ 0008, 0036).
It would have been obvious to combine the eddy current brake of Gluck with the device of Semsey to provide quick and reliable braking while using the mechanical brake as little as possible (see e.g. Gluck, ¶¶ 0003, 0009).
Regarding claim 27, Semsey does not disclose that the eddy current brake is arranged on a brake disk of a hydraulic or electromechanical brake, and/or a rotating body in the drive system of the electrical drive motor is used for induction of eddy currents and is used as the eddy current brake.
Gluck teaches a regenerative brake system (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising an additional brake (3) configured as an eddy brake (see ¶ 0035), wherein the eddy current brake is arranged on a brake disk of a hydraulic or electromechanical brake, and/or a rotating body in the drive system of the electrical drive motor is used for induction of eddy currents and is used as the eddy current brake (see FIG. 1; ¶¶ 0008, 0036).
It would have been obvious to combine the eddy current brake of Gluck with the device of Semsey to provide quick and reliable braking while using the mechanical brake as little as possible (see e.g. Gluck, ¶¶ 0003, 0009).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Conclusion
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 NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571)272-7124. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights