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 . Claims 1-6 were previously pending. Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claims 4-6 have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-3 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symanow (US 2018/0056790 A1) in view of Cho (US 2020/0164880 A1) and Tamagawa (JP 2004-44522 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 8/11/2025 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Symanow discloses a control device for controlling a vehicle including: a power train including a battery and an electric motor operated by electric power from the battery (see at least Fig. 1, [0009, 0012] – battery 24 may store energy that can be used by the electrical machine 14… electrical machine 15 operates as a motor or a generator), and configured to perform regenerative traveling by using the electric motor as a generator during deceleration of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 1, [0009-0010] – electrical machine 14 may be capable of operating as a motor or generator… regenerative braking); and an auxiliary device operated by the electric power from the battery (see at least Fig. 1, [0014-0015] – battery 24 may provide energy for other vehicle electrical systems… one or more high voltage electrical loads 46), the control device comprising an electronic control unit configured to control regenerative power of the electric motor during the regenerative traveling (see at least Fig. 1, [0011] – controller 48 configured to control distribution of power, such as power generated during a regenerative braking event), wherein in a first traveling condition, the electronic control unit is configured to: calculate an input limit for regeneration by adding a consumed power of the auxiliary device to the battery input limit (see at least Fig. 2, [0026-0028] – sum of an amount of power consumed by the high voltage loads 46 and the charge power limit of the battery 24); and execute first regenerative power control for controlling the regenerative power so as not to exceed the input limit for regeneration (see at least Fig. 2, [0027-0028] – for instance, issue a command to the brake system 50 to absorb an amount of power in excess of the sum… or direct the excess to one or more systems operating on the low voltage bus 56).
Symanow does not appear to explicitly disclose the auxiliary device including at least one of an air-conditioner, a DC/DC converter, and an alternating current power supply; the first traveling condition where a battery input limit as allowable maximum charging power of the battery is equal to or greater than a first threshold value during the regenerative traveling; and the battery input limit being a negative value.
Cho, in the same field of endeavor teaches the following limitations: the auxiliary device including at least one of an air-conditioner (see at least [0064]), a DC/DC converter, and an alternating current power supply; the first traveling condition where a battery input limit as allowable maximum charging power of the battery is equal to or greater than a first threshold value during the regenerative traveling (see at least Figs. 4-5, [0051-0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Cho into the invention of Symanow with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent overcharging the battery, which reduces the battery life (Cho – [0009]). Additionally, with respect to the auxiliary device being an air conditioner, there are a variety of devices in vehicles that could be powered by a battery. Selecting one well known device (i.e., an air conditioner as demonstrated by Cho) to be powered by a battery requires only routine skill in the art. It is known that air conditioners can be powered by batteries in vehicles and making this modification as demonstrated by Hisano would yield predictable results.
Tamagawa, in the same field of endeavor teaches the following limitations: the battery input limit being a negative value (see at least [0025] – battery charge power limit value is a negative value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Tamagawa into the invention of Symanow with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that between the battery input limit (i.e., charging) and the consumed power of the auxiliary device is output from the battery (i.e., discharging) one of these values should be a negative value while the other should be a positive since one is charging and one is discharging. Tamagawa demonstrates that inputs to the battery (i.e., charging values) are negative while the outputs from the battery (i.e., discharging values) are positive because regenerative torque is a negative value while driving torque is a positive value (see Tamagawa – [0025]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize this modification involves simple math (i.e., recognizing, just as an example, that A + (-B) = (-C) is the same as B – A = C). This modification would yield predictable results. Finally, Applicant does not appear to provide any particular advantages to implementing the battery input limit as a negative value, as opposed to a positive value.
Regarding claim 2, Symanow discloses wherein the electronic control unit is configured to: execute second regenerative power control for controlling the regenerative power so as not to exceed the battery input limit (see at least Fig. 2, [0026-0029] – otherwise maintaining power distribution during a given regenerative braking event).
Symanow does not appear to explicitly disclose when the battery input limit is less than the first threshold value, execute second regenerative power control.
Cho, in the same field of endeavor teaches the following limitations: when the battery input limit is less than the first threshold value, execute second regenerative power control (see at least Figs. 4-5, [0051-0055]).
The motivation to combine Symanow and Cho is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Symanow discloses wherein the consumed power of the auxiliary device is a specification value determined in advance (see at least [0015] – the high voltage loads 46 may consume a predefined amount of power).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s summary of the examiner interview appears to be referring to a different examiner on a different date. However the other details of the summary appear to be correct with regards to the discussion of Symanow and Tamagawa.
In light of the amendments to the claims, claim limitations no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 filed 11/4/2025, with respect to the Symanow reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
During the examiner interview it was tentatively agreed upon that the proposed amendments would appear to overcome the current rejection in light of the proposed limitation “the auxiliary device including at least one of an air-conditioner, a DC/DC converter, and an alternating current power supply device.” No agreements were reached on any other arguments pertaining to the Symanow reference.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that Symanow does not disclose calculating an input limit for regeneration as recited in claim 1, and the Office simply states that paragraphs [0026-0028] disclose “sum of an amount of power consumed by the high voltage loads 46 and the charge power limit of the battery 24.” The examiner notes that the entire limitation Applicant is referring to recites calculate an input limit for regeneration by adding a consumed power of the auxiliary device to the battery input limit. The input limit is a result calculated by adding the consumed power of the auxiliary device to the battery input limit. In addition, paragraphs [0026-0028] of Symanow clearly discuss this in reference to power during regenerative braking. Therefore the examiner maintains that at least paragraphs [0026-0028] of Symanow disclose this limitation.
Applicant argues on page 7 that the sum of an amount of power consumed by the high voltage loads 46 and the charge power limit of the battery 24 appears to yield the maximum regenerative power Pmrmax as set forth in the disclosure and shown in FIG. 2A, rather than the claimed regeneration input limit. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim does not further define what the input limit for regeneration is (or what it is not), and the limitation itself is recited very broadly. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the sum of an amount of power consumed by the high voltage loads 46 and the charge power limit of the battery 24 in Symanow corresponds to a value which, under broadest reasonable interpretation, reads on an input limit for regeneration.
Applicant argues on page 7 that without Symanow teaching the battery charge limit value being negative, the claimed regeneration input limit cannot be reasonably comprehended from the disclosure of Symanow without impermissible hindsight gleaned from the disclosure of the present application. In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner maintains that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this modification relates to simply defining which of charging and discharging corresponds to a positive value and a negative value. This selection or modification involves simple math (i.e., recognizing, just as an example, that A + (-B) = (-C) is the same as B – A = C), and therefore it would have been obvious to select the battery input limit to be negative.
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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669