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 .
1. Drawings
The drawings were received on November 1st 2023. These drawings are accepted.
2. Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on September 11th 2025;
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
3. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are moot. While the Examiner notes that the applicant is arguing the claim limitations recite " … a first user input indicating a range extension level for operation of the BEV, the range extension level indicating one of a plurality of reduced operation levels of the BEV relative to a base or default operation level of the BEV to increase the range of the BEV; receive, by the user via the user interface, a second user input indicating an allocation of the range extension level between a plurality of different systems of the BEV… “. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claims 1 and 10 over Liu (Patent No. US20160375788A1) in view of Geller (Paten No. US20170213137A1).
4. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
1. Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Patent No. US20160375788A1) in view of Geller (Paten No. US20170213137A1).
Regarding claim 1 Liu teaches a user-customizable range extension system for a battery electric vehicle (BEV) the user-customizable range extension system comprising; (See Liu paragraph 0042 and 0048;” Battery pack 417…used to supply the energy necessary for the various vehicle systems that require electrical power… the system controller is configured to help the driver to make adjustments to their driving style and/or auxiliary system settings in order to extend their driving range as desired.”); a user interface configured to display information and to receive user input from the user to control operation of the BEV and a range of the BEV; (See Liu paragraph 0033 and 0050; “…driving range is displayed (step 115), thus allowing the driver to not only monitor the car's current range... request is input via user interface 405, for example using a touch-screen display…”); and a controller configured to: receive, by the user via the user interface; (See Liu paragraph 0050; “In process 500, as in the previously described methods, the system controller continually updates the driving range (step 113) … request is input via user interface 405.…”).
Liu does not exactly teach but Geller teaches, indicating a range extension level for operation of the BEV, the range extension level indicating one of a plurality of reduced operation levels of the BEV relative to a base or default operation level of the BEV to increase the range of the BEV; receive, by the user via the user interface, a second user input indicating an allocation of the range extension level between a plurality of different systems of the BEV; (See Geller paragraph 0060-0061 and 0067-0068; “The processor determines which user-controllable factor(s) will be fixed and which user-controllable factor(s) will be varied. This determination may be made based on user input. For example, the driver may wish to know of or be aware of the range of the vehicle if he turns off an air conditioning system. In that regard, the user may use the input to select for the potential range to be based on the air conditioning being turned off (examiner notes; second input).
In some embodiments, the processor may select which user-controllable factor will be varied based on which potential change will most increase the driving range. For example, the processor may determine that switching the mode from normal to ECO (examiner notes; first input) will extend the range in at least one direction by 10 miles and that conservative driving (such as lower acceleration rates and less brake force) will extend the range in the at least one direction by 15 miles. The processor may then determine that the potential range will be based on conservative driving…
…the efficiency of the vehicle may still be based on one or more user-controllable setting. For example, the efficiency of an autonomous vehicle may be based on a mode of the vehicle, a route selection preference (such as whether the vehicle is to take the fastest route or the most energy efficient route) or the like.
Processors of these vehicles may be designed to instruct the output device to output potential ranges of the vehicle based on any combination of these user-controllable settings. In that regard, the user can make informed selections of the user-controllable settings based on knowledge of the various potential ranges. For example, an autonomous vehicle may be set to select routes based on time efficiency. The processor may instruct the output device to output the current range based on the time efficient route selection along with a potential range based on energy efficient route selection. After viewing the current range and the potential range, the user can make an informed decision regarding whether or not to change the route selection preference.”).
Both Liu and Geller are in the same field of range extension. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Liu electric vehicle driving range optimization with Geller user input indicating an allocation of the range extension. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Liu by including user input indicating an allocation of the range extension to implement the user adjustments to the range. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3 Liu over Geller teaches the user-customizable range extension system of claim 2, Liu further teaches wherein the plurality of different systems of the BEV include a propulsion system, a thermal management system, and an auxiliary power system; (See Liu paragraph 0041, 0044 and 0052; “Vehicle 400 includes a propulsion source 415… Vehicle 400 includes a thermal management system 427… setting for one of the vehicle's auxiliary systems…”).
Regarding claim 9 Liu over Geller teaches the user-customizable range extension system of claim 1, Liu further teaches wherein neither the first nor second user inputs specifies a selectable economical mode indicating a predetermined reduced operation of the BEV to extend its range; (See Liu paragraph 0055 and 0056; “…the system automatically providing range extending suggestions in response to a low battery charge level is equally applicable to the procedures illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2 as well as the smart system described relative to FIG. 6.
In an alternate embodiment, rather than automatically providing range extending suggestions in response to battery charge levels, the system illustrated in FIG. 8 automatically makes suggestions when the driving range falls below a preset level (step 801). The system may be configured to allow the preset range used in step 803 to be preset by the vehicle manufacturer…”).
With respect to the independent claim 10, please see rejection above with respect to claim 1 which is commensurate in scope to claim 10, with claim 1 being drown to system, claim 10 being drawn to an invention method.
Regarding claim 19 Liu over Geller teaches the user-customizable range extension system of claim 1, Liu further teaches, wherein the control system is configured to control the BEV including its plurality of different systems to increase the range of the BEV as specified by the user based on only (i) the range extension level, as indicated by the first user input, and (ii) the indicated allocation thereof, as indicated by the second user input, and without any additional user input via the user interface; (See Geller paragraph 0060-0061 and 0067-0068; “The processor determines which user-controllable factor(s) will be fixed and which user-controllable factor(s) will be varied. This determination may be made based on user input. For example, the driver may wish to know of or be aware of the range of the vehicle if he turns off an air conditioning system. In that regard, the user may use the input to select for the potential range to be based on the air conditioning being turned off (examiner notes; second input).
In some embodiments, the processor may select which user-controllable factor will be varied based on which potential change will most increase the driving range. For example, the processor may determine that switching the mode from normal to ECO (examiner notes; first input) will extend the range in at least one direction by 10 miles and that conservative driving (such as lower acceleration rates and less brake force) will extend the range in the at least one direction by 15 miles. The processor may then determine that the potential range will be based on conservative driving…
…the efficiency of the vehicle may still be based on one or more user-controllable setting. For example, the efficiency of an autonomous vehicle may be based on a mode of the vehicle, a route selection preference (such as whether the vehicle is to take the fastest route or the most energy efficient route) or the like.
Processors of these vehicles may be designed to instruct the output device to output potential ranges of the vehicle based on any combination of these user-controllable settings. In that regard, the user can make informed selections of the user-controllable settings based on knowledge of the various potential ranges. For example, an autonomous vehicle may be set to select routes based on time efficiency. The processor may instruct the output device to output the current range based on the time efficient route selection along with a potential range based on energy efficient route selection. After viewing the current range and the potential range, the user can make an informed decision regarding whether or not to change the route selection preference.”).
Both Liu and Geller are in the same field of range extension. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Liu electric vehicle driving range optimization with Geller user input indicating an allocation of the range extension. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Liu by including user input indicating an allocation of the range extension to implement the user adjustments to the range. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the dependent claim 18, please see rejection above with respect to claim 9 which are commensurate in scope to claim 18, with claim 9 being drown to system, claims 18 being drawn to an invention method.
2. Claims 2-8 and 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Patent No. US20160375788A1) in view of Geller (Paten No. US20170213137A1), Bruneau (Patent No. US20230118287A1) and Yamamoto (Patent No. US20160152217A1).
Regarding claim 2 Liu over Geller teaches the user-customizable range extension system of claim 1, Liu does not teach but Yamamoto teaches wherein the range extension level is between 0%, which corresponds to zero range extension, and 100%, which corresponds to a maximum amount of range extension; (See Yamamoto paragraph 028; “Referring to FIG. 3B (depicting a plot of the output voltage of the first potentiometer output signal 310 and the second potentiometer output signal 320 as a function of slider position) in conjunction with FIGS. 2 and 3A, the first potentiometer 132 outputs a first potentiometer output signal 310 having a voltage that ranges between a first minimum output voltage min.sub.1 and a first maximum output voltage max.sub.1. The second potentiometer 134 outputs a second potentiometer output signal 320 having a voltage that ranges between a second minimum output voltage min.sub.1 and a second maximum output voltage max.sub.1. The output profile of the first potentiometer 132 and the second potentiometer 134 is a two cross output profile because the first potentiometer 132 outputs a first potentiometer output signal 310 having a voltage that increases as the slider 302 traverses from a starting slider position (e.g., 0%) to an ending slider position (e.g., 100%), and the second potentiometer 134 outputs a second potentiometer output signal 320 having a voltage that decreases as the slider traverses from the starting slider position (e.g., 0%) to the ending slider position (e.g., 100%).”).
Both Liu and Yamamoto are in the same field of range extension. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Liu electric vehicle driving range optimization with Yamamoto range extension levels. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Liu by including range extension levels to define how much adjustment can be made. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4 Liu over Geller teaches the user-customizable range extension system of claim 3, Liu dos not teach but Bruneau teaches wherein the allocation of the range extension level between the plurality of different systems of the BEV includes three percentages that sum to the range extension level; (See Bruneau paragraph 0165 and 0237; “state of charge 43 (referred hereinafter as “SoC 43”) of battery 26 and/or other parameters of powertrain 36. SoC 43 may be determined using any suitable method and may be expressed as a percentage of the capacity of battery 26 (e.g., 0%=empty; 100%=full), or as any other suitable indication…difference between actual and estimated battery consumption may be due to different operating conditions and/or driving habits than those (if any) specified at the planning stage. In any event, the revision of estimated battery consumption data 50 based on actual battery consumption data 49 may, in a relatively simple manner, effectively take into account the applicable operating conditions, driving habits, and other factors that may affect the driving range of battery 26. In some embodiments, the actual consumption of battery 26 may be monitored intermittently or continuously along the route so that estimated battery consumption data 50 may be revised accordingly.”).
Both Liu and Bruneau are in the same field of range extension. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Liu electric vehicle driving range optimization with Bruneau allocation of the range extension level. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Liu by including allocation of the range extension level to improve range extinction for all systems of electric vehicle. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5 Liu over Geller teaches the user-customizable range extension system of claim 4, Liu does not teach but Yamamoto teaches wherein the user interface is further configured to display a single primary slider input for receiving the first user input; (See Yamamoto paragraph 028; “Referring to FIG. 3B … a function of slider position) in conjunction with FIGS. 2 and 3A, the first potentiometer 132 outputs a first potentiometer output signal 310 having a voltage that ranges between a first minimum output voltage min.sub.1 and a first maximum output voltage max.sub.1. The second potentiometer 134 outputs a second potentiometer output signal 320 having a voltage that ranges between a second minimum output voltage min.sub.1 and a second maximum output voltage max.sub.1. The output profile of the first potentiometer 132 and the second potentiometer 134 is a two cross output profile because the first potentiometer 132 outputs a first potentiometer output signal 310 having a voltage that increases as the slider 302 traverses from a starting slider position (e.g., 0%) to an ending slider position (e.g., 100%), and the second potentiometer 134 outputs a second potentiometer output signal 320 having a voltage that decreases as the slider traverses from the starting slider position (e.g., 0%) to the ending slider position (e.g., 100%).”).
Both Liu and Yamamoto are in the same field of range extension. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Liu electric vehicle driving range optimization with Yamamoto displaying slider input. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Liu by including displaying slider input to allow adjustment of the range. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6 Liu over Geller teaches the user-customizable range extension system of claim 5, Liu further teaches wherein the user interface is further configured to display a single secondary dual-range slider input for receiving the second user input; (See Liu paragraph 0040; “… Interface 405 may be comprised of a single interface, for example a touch-screen display, or a combination of user interfaces such as push-button switches, capacitive switches, slide or toggle switches, gauges, display screens, visible and/or audible warning indicators, etc. It will be appreciated that if user interface 405 includes a graphical display as preferred, controller 401 may also include a graphical processing unit (GPU), with the GPU being either separate from or contained on the same chip set as the CPU.”).
Regarding claim 7 Liu over Geller teaches the user-customizable range extension system of claim 1, Liu dos not teach but Bruneau teaches wherein the user interface is further configured to receive the first and second inputs from the user prior to a start of a current trip of the BEV; (See Bruneau paragraph 0213; “…Interface 86A may be provided on a touch-sensitive display device suitable for receiving input from the operator. Interface 86A may be used by the operator during a trip planning stage before travelling the selected route.”).
Both Liu and Bruneau are in the same field of range extension. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Liu electric vehicle driving range optimization with Bruneau interface and user input. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Liu by including interface and user input to implement the user adjustments to the range. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8 Liu over Geller teaches the user-customizable range extension system of claim 7, Liu further teaches wherein the user interface is further configured to receive the first and second inputs from the user as adjustments during the current trip of the BEV; (See Liu paragraph 0052; “…system controller 401 provides the user with at least two range extending categories to select from prior to making the range extending suggestion. For example, the system controller may be configured to allow the user to select between adjusting the top speed and altering an auxiliary system setting. Once the user selects from the offered categories, system controller 401 provides a suggestion within the selected category for either altering driver behavior or an auxiliary system in order to extend driving range…”).
With respect to the dependent claims 11-17, please see rejection above with respect to claims 2-8 which are commensurate in scope to claims 11-17, with claims 2-8 being drown to system, claims 11-17 being drawn to an invention method.
With respect to the dependent claim 20, please see rejection above with respect to claim 19 which are commensurate in scope to claim 20, with claim 19 being drown to system, claim 20 being drawn to an invention method.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LIDIA KWIATKOWSKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/L.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666