CTNF 18/336,095 CTNF 77686 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. OFFICE ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, “the method” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 2-7 are rejected because they depend from claim 1. Claims 4 and 9 are rejected because the phrase “ may have ” and " may be " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). and/or it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are actually being implemented in the invention; also “ may have ” and " may be " do not indicate whether or not an action/element is actually performed/included; “ may have ” and " may be " should be deleted and replaced with definite terms. Claims 5-7 are rejected because they depend from claim 4. Claims 10-12 are rejected because they depend from claim 9. In claims 4 and 9, the first occurrence of “the cost equation” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 5-7 are rejected because they depend from claim 4. Claims 10-12 are rejected because they depend from claim 9. In claim 4, the phrase “ e.g. lithium ion…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). and/or it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are actually being implemented in the invention; also “ e.g. lithium ion…” do not indicate whether or not an action/element is actually performed/included; ““ e.g. lithium ion…” should be deleted and replaced with definite terms. Claims 5-7 are rejected because they depend from claim 4. In claim 15, “the cost equation” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 15 is rejected because the phrase “ may have ” and " may be " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). and/or it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are actually being implemented in the invention; also “ may have ” and " may be " do not indicate whether or not an action/element is actually performed/included; “ may have ” and " may be " should be deleted and replaced with definite terms. In claim 15, the phrase “ e.g. lithium ion…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). and/or it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are actually being implemented in the invention; also “ e.g. lithium ion…” do not indicate whether or not an action/element is actually performed/included; ““ e.g. lithium ion…” should be deleted and replaced with definite terms. Claims 16-20 are rejected because they depend from claim 15 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 8, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) being anticipated by the prior art of record Ropel (US 2024/0142247). Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses: A vehicle ( fig 4, 6, 14 ) comprising: at least one electric motor (motor in vehicle in fig 4, 6, 14) configured to convert electric power to rotational motion; a battery system (battery in vehicle in fig 4, 6, 14 ) electrically connected to the at least one electric motor; a controller coupled to the battery system, the controller including a non-transitory computer readable memory and a processor ( see one or more of abstract, summary, fig 4, 14, par 49-54, 67-74, 103-104, 126, 138-142, 212-214) , the memory storing a charging control software module, the charging control software module being configured to cause the processor to perform the method of determining an optimum charging profile ( i.e., see one or more of abstract, background, summary, par 105-110, 122-129, 134, 138, 160-162. 166-170, 236) based at least partially on an available received charging power (see one or more of background, summary, par 99-100, 110-111, 123-124, 129, 137-138, 146, 150, 153, 160-162, 166-168, 174, 185, 192-194, 233-236) , an ambient temperature of the battery system (par 100) , charging system constraints (see one or more of abstract, background, summary, par 97, 107-111, 153, 160-162, 168-170, 192-195, 210-211 ) , and at least one driver preference ( user preference/driving habits, user compares/ selects/ inputs/ interacts/ provides charging time, route/station change by user, charging preference from/by user/driver input (abstract, background, summary, par 53, 106, 123, 126, 143, 146, 150, 156, 162, 170, 195, 236)). Independent method claim 8 recites similar subject matter and rejected for the same reason. For cost function in claim 8, see one or more of par 25, 101, 120, 237, 146, 153, 193, 206-207, 211 (Claims 2, 13) wherein the at least one driver preference includes a relative ranking of a set of parameters including at least charging time ( see one or more of abstract, background, summary, par 105-106, 122-123, 128-129, 134, 153, 160, 166-167, 174-175, 185-192, 199-204, 226, 236), cost-energy efficiency, monetary cost, (see one or more of par 25, 101, 120, 237, 146, 153, 193, 206-207, 211) and a battery life (par 107-108) (Claims 3, 14) wherein the charging system constraints include at least one of an expected distance to next available charge and an expected time until departure (see one or more of summary, par 124, 138, 150, 153, 160, 166-168, 185, 192, 199). Claims 1-3, 8, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) being anticipated by the prior art of record Calabro (US 2025/0128632). Regarding claim 1 the prior art discloses: A vehicle (title, par 76) comprising: at least one electric motor (traction motor in par 3, 76) configured to convert electric power to rotational motion; a battery system ( Par 3, 76) electrically connected to the at least one electric motor; a controller ( Controller/Battery management system (BMS) in par 198 ) coupled to the battery system, the controller including a non-transitory computer readable memory and a processor, the memory storing a charging control software module, the charging control software module being configured to cause the processor to perform the method of determining an optimum charging profile based at least partially on an available received charging power (available charger/power/charging site / next stop charger (par 17, 20, 34-35, 88, 156, 163, 165, 194, 345, 353, 365)) , an ambient temperature of the battery system (par 79, 110-111, 121, 206, 288, 302) , charging system constraints (see one or more of abstract, summary, par 34-36, 86, 92, 98, 122, 125, 129, 171-172, 216-218, 289, 327-328) , and at least one driver preference ( see one or more of driver break with charging (fig 8), customer charging demand (par 229), reserve power level (set by an operator) in par 286, charge range set by operator (par 296), operator selection (par 323), user criterial (par 360)). Independent method claim 8 recites similar subject matter and rejected for the same reason. For cost function in claim 8, see one or more of abstract, par 2, 10, 19-20, 44-45, 62, 86-93, 98-102, 123-139, 190-194, 281-283, 325-335. (Claims 2, 13) wherein the at least one driver preference includes a relative ranking of a set of parameters including at least charging time (abstract, summary, par 34-46, 98-102, 125-129, 133-134) 214-216, 241-242, 325-329) cost-energy efficiency/monetary cost (see one or more of abstract, par 2, 10, 19-20, 44-45, 62, 86-93, 98-102, 123-139, 190-194, 281-283, 325-335), and a battery life (par 43, 78-82, 86, 93, 110-111, 118-121, 137-138, 283, 291-292) (Claims 3, 14) wherein the charging system constraints include at least one of an expected distance to next available charge and an expected time until departure (see at least one of par 4, 7, 35, 133, 141, 150, 152, 156, 158 160-163, fig 13, par 200, 223, 304, 314, 326, 352, 344, 360-361). Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claim s 4-7, 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim , but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 4-7, 9-12 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the feature determining/evaluating the optimum charging profile/ cost function comprises minimizing the cost equation recited in claim 4 and similarly recited claim 9. Claims 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 15-20 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, among other limitations, the feature determining/evaluating an optimization cost function comprises minimizing the cost equation recited in claim 15, similar to allowable subject matter of claim 4 and/or claim 9. Correspondence Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DINH whose telephone number is 571-272-1890. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax 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. /PAUL DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/336,095 Page 2 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/336,095 Page 3 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/336,095 Page 4 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/336,095 Page 5 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/336,095 Page 6 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/336,095 Page 7 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/336,095 Page 8 Art Unit: 2851
Prosecution Insights