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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 05/20/2026.
Claims 18-27 and 29-34 are pending.
Claims 18, 29, 33, and 34 are amended.
Claim 28 is cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 06/11/2026.
Amendment to the Instant Specification
The amendment to the instant specification, dated 05/20/2026, has been reviewed and does not appear to introduce new matter. Therefore, said amendment is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 29 is 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.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites the limitation “The energy supply management system according to claim 18, wherein the at least one connected energy supply unit is a redundant energy supply unit or an energy supply unit that is associated with at least one further load unit having a reduced- energy scope of functions or having a non-exhaustive energy requirement.” There has been no prior explicit mention of “an at least one connected energy supply unit,” and it is not clear which supply unit or units are specifically being referenced. The base claim generally alludes to various energy supply units that may be connected and possible in various combinations. For example, is the “at least one connected energy supply” in reference to the predetermined energy unit connected to the at least one load, or in reference to the group of multiple energy supplies connected to the at least one load, or in reference to the further energy supply unit that may be connected to the at least one load, or is the further energy supply unit connected to the predetermined supply energy unit, or is the further energy supply unit connected to the group of the multiple energy supply units, or is the “at least one connected energy supply” in reference to some completely different energy supply unit or units? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, the base claim from which claim 29 depends has been amended to include a substantially similar limitation, but the base claim limitation is more explicitly directed to “the at least one further energy supply.” As such, the general ambiguity in claim 29 that references “the at least one connected energy unit” even though there has been no explicit antecedent basis in the form of “an at least one connected energy supply unit,” now becomes concretely unclear with “the at least one further energy supply unit” for which the limitations of that apply to it in the base claim that are substantially similar to the limitation in claim 29, since now there is at least a circumstance where the limitations can be interpreted to read that all energy supply units are redundant, and it is unclear how this is the case as to redundant to which units. It also noted, that in another sense, given the ambiguity of “the at least one connected energy supply,” claim 29 could be taken as a substantially duplicate claim to the base claim limitation, which can pose a claim objection under 37 CFR 1.75, because when two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
For the purpose of Examination, claim 29 limitations is being broadly interpreted to include any energy supply unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are primarily focused on that the applied prior art does not teach “an energy supply management system being configured to determine an energy requirement of the at least one load unit for a predetermined driving maneuver,” “adapting the predetermined scope of functions,” “any adaption with respect to a driving maneuver and/or an energy supply system,” “wherein the energy supply management system comprises multiple energy supply units, the at least one load unit is connected to a predetermined energy supply unit or to a group of the multiple energy supply units and the energy supply management system is configured to cover the energy requirement of the at least one load unit by adapting the energy supply system by connecting at least one further energy supply unit of the multiple energy supply units,” and “wherein the at least one further energy supply unit is a redundant energy supply unit or an energy supply unit that is associated with at least one further load unit having a reduced- energy scope of functions or having a nonexhaustive energy requirement.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant states on page 11 of the arguments that:
PNG
media_image1.png
666
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is giving more weight to the claim limitations than they merit, while also diminishing the cited references for all that they suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, the aspect of a “predefined driving maneuver” can be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to encompass an associated function, occurrence, intent, or concept for a vehicle while it is being driven or operated (i.e., “a driving maneuver”), and for which said function, occurrence, intent, or concept is somehow anticipatorily considered in some sense (i.e. predetermined). Fritz considers a set of driving functions/occurrences in at least paragraphs 31, 32, 33, for example in the manner of steering, braking, travel speed adjustments, performance of executing a driven sowing operation (i.e. general seed sowing driving maneuvers), etc. In Fritz, specified consumers are used in the performance of certain functions/occurrences, such as in supporting a steering function, braking, or as a result of a maneuver for a change in a driving speed. Taken in context with the concepts in paragraph 3 of which Fritz extends, the consumers (i.e. loads) command a demand (request) of electric power (p36-37, Fritz), and since the consumers are devices with the purpose of supporting specified functions including driving functions, a load’s requested supply, such as for a function such as steering, braking, etc., would be in essence for such a driving maneuver. Further in Fritz, when power is requested, as discussed above, for a function associated with the consumer, the system makes use of supply priority categories at least when total demand is exceeded by the vehicle available supply (see p7-20, p27-36, Fritz). Moreover, the supply categories disclosed by Fritz, include the explicit consideration of electrical consumers associated with and in support for functions including steering, braking, sowing, etc., to provide priority for the given considered function. A person of ordinary skill recognizes the implication that these driving functions represent predetermined consideration of specified function (e.g., steering, and other general driving maneuver) because the supply priorities in connection the associated consumer loads are necessarily determined prior to the actual supply of as a result of a request for power. The claims do not specify or limit the nature of the so-called “driving maneuver” or in what sense or aspect it is “predetermined.” As such, the implication of steering, braking, etc., as a driving maneuver that is what prompts a consumer need for energy request, and the use of supply priorities, such that a load’s priority is linked to the driving function prior to a supply management decision, provides a reasonable disclosure of a determination of a needed (required) energy requirement for at least one load for a predetermined driving maneuver. 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). Moreover, it is noted that the claims do not actually recite that the action of making a driving maneuver is itself predetermined. In a sense, the limitation lends itself to the interpretation that an energy requirement of a load may be determined for an impromptu driving maneuver, where an anticipatory consideration of such a driving maneuver in relation to a load’s energy requirement is used in the determination. Thus, the actual “predetermined” as aspect is with an anticipated driving maneuver. This means that Applicant’s argument that Fritz uses a current operating state does not contradict that Fritz still uses a “predetermined driving maneuver” because, as noted previously, the claims do not require any determination “during a predetermined maneuver,” as applicant states in the arguments. It is also noted that Applicant argues that Fritz does not consider “characteristics over time,” however the claims make zero mention of any “time,” “period,” “duration,” or any other temporal aspect.
Finally, with respect to Fritz, Applicant argues that Fritz does not disclose adapting “the predetermined scope of functions,” or “any adaptation with respect to a driving maneuver and/or an energy supply system.” Here again, Applicant is giving more weight to the claims than they merit. The claims do not specify or limit the manner of “adaptation” of the “energy supply system.” In Fritz, when an operating state of an individual consumer, such as a consumer that demands power for a driving function, would cause the total power demand of the vehicle energy amount demanded to exceed the supply availability, then the system will reduce power of certain consumers based on priorities related to specified functions. This is in a sense is an adaptation of the energy supply system because the energy supply system is adapted to reduce supply to certain loads and in view of specified predetermined functions that in specified cases include predetermined driving functions. In other words, Fritz includes the implication that when the operating state of at least one consumer, such as that of a consumer associated with a driving function, will cause demand to exceed total supply (i.e. an energy that is able to be supplied cannot cover the requirement of the operating state commanded by the at least one specified consumer, then the energy system will adapt itself in the distribution of the available energy, which may include reducing certain loads.
Applicant states on pages 11-14 that:
PNG
media_image2.png
357
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
286
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
149
645
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
585
609
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
436
624
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
302
624
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
108
608
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
366
624
media_image9.png
Greyscale
With regards to Applicant’s arguments against Augst, Applicant essentially argues that Augst is directed to energy distribution process where energy devices can be addressed in a targeted manner if excess energy for charging is foreseeable, whereby a corresponding discharge can then preferably take place beforehand, as opposed to the claimed adaptation in a case in which available energy does not cover an energy requirement. Applicant also argues that Augst does not assign an energy storage to a consumer and to what extent a connection takes place or should take place in the event of energy shortage. Applicant further argues about connections of the energy supply units and to the load, and that Augst does not perform any assignments of predetermined energy supply units. Finally, Applicant argues that Augst does not teach that a further energy supply is added or redundant.
The Examiner also respectfully disagrees.
First, Augst is being relied upon to teach that a vehicle can employ multiple energy supply units, that can be of various forms, and which can be used for energy management of the vehicle, including when an energy requirement cannot be covered. As even Applicant plainly states in the arguments, Augst teaches at least the case of an energy supply for a vehicle electrical system by a supercapacitor is changed to an energy supply by a battery if the energy requirement cannot be covered by the supercapacitor (p43, Augst). Applicant states that in such a case, a further energy supply unit is not connected in terms of being added, but rather that the energy supply unit is changed. However, the claims are not nearly so specific as Applicant argues. The claims say nothing about connecting to the predetermined energy supply to add their combined power, it merely states that it is connected without specifying to what it is being connected (e.g. the another battery, the load?). The term “further” can be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to refer to another energy supply unit that has not previously been considered within the claim with respect to either “the predetermined energy supply” or the “a group of the multiple energy supply units” to which an at least one load unit. In other words, the further can be interpreted as a further energy unit for consideration that can be connected to singularly or in replacement supply a load. Again, the claim does not specify that the further energy supply is added to the other supply units to supply together. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation can include that another (i.e. a further energy source), can be used to cover the requirement, as in replacing, which is a form of redundancy in the sense of a system that can take another ones place in case the main system cannot provide the needed service. Thus, Augst does also include the implication of redundant energy supply. With regards to Applicants arguments of pre determined energy supply, the Examiner notes that If the supercapcitor was the initial energy supply to provide power, then it is predetermined, especially since Aust does deal with predictive considerations. As to Applicant’s argument that the Augst does not teach a connection, a assigning an energy supply to a load, it is noted that the fact that Augst teaches the supply to the a needed vehicle system and by even changing from one supply unit to another, requires that the supply into “connect” to the consumer in order for the consumer to action be provide with the energy units supply. This in itself is a form of “assignment,” but it is also noted that the instant claims do not mention any “assignment.” As to Applicant’s arguments directed to the intended purposes of safety-backup, the Examiner notes that the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Additionally, Fritz itself considers safety relevant functions.
For these reasons it is believed that the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches the claims in question.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers 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 that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in 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.
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.
Claims 18-27 and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2016/0316621 to Fritz et al., (hereinafter Fritz), in view of W.I.P.O. Patent Publication No. WO2013034729A1 to Augst et al., (hereinafter Augst)
Regarding claim 18, Fritz teaches an energy supply management system for a vehicle (Vehicle energy management system, see abs., Fritz), comprising:
at least one energy supply system having at least one energy supply unit (Electric power supply system with vehicle battery unit, see P7, p28, abs., Fritz);
at least one load unit having a predetermined scope of functions (Electrical consumers (loads) with functions (e.g. vehicle core functions, vehicle agricultural functions, drive functions, comfort functions, etc.,), see p30-35, P7, p28-29, abs., Fritz), which is able to be connected to the at least one energy supply system in order to be supplied with energy (Electrical consumers (loads) , thus able to be connected to energy supply system, since they consume electric energy, see p30-35, P7, p28-29, abs., Fritz), wherein the energy supply management system is configured to:
determine an energy requirement of the at least one load unit for a predetermined driving maneuver (Electric demand is determined for consumers that involve vehicle functions (i.e. driving maneuver), see Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz), determine an energy that is able to be provided by the at least one energy supply unit to cover the energy requirement (Determining an estimate of power supply for the electric consumers, see Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz), and adapt the predetermined scope of functions of the load unit, the predetermined driving maneuver and/or the energy supply system, when the energy that is able to be provided by the at least one energy supply unit to cover the energy requirement does not cover the energy requirement (Where the available power supply is exceeded by the total determined energy demanded, the system is adapted, for example on function priorities scope, etc., see Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, 45, Fritz).
Fritz does not explicitly teach wherein an energy supply management system comprises multiple energy supply units, an at least one load unit is connected to a predetermined energy supply unit or to a group of the multiple energy supply units, and the energy supply management system is further configured to cover an energy requirement of the at least one load unit by adapting the energy supply system by connecting at least one further energy supply unit of the multiple energy supply units, and wherein the at least one further energy supply is a redundant energy supply unit or an energy supply unit that is associated with at least one further load unit having a reduced- energy scope of functions or having a nonexhaustive energy requirement.
However, Augst from the same or similar field of vehicle and energy distribution of the vehicle, teaches wherein an energy supply management system comprises multiple energy supply units (A number of energy storage devices in a vehicle, see p17, p29, Augst), an at least one load unit is connected to a predetermined energy supply unit or to a group of the multiple energy supply units (Energy storage devices in a vehicle for energy consumers, thus at least one load connected to an energy supply, see p17, Augst), and the energy supply management system is further configured to cover an energy requirement of the at least one load unit by adapting the energy supply system by connecting at least one further energy supply unit of the multiple energy supply units (Energy storage devices are adapted so that a specified supply can better meet the needed anticipated load requirements for energy and conservation, see p17, p29, p13, 6, 27, Augst), and wherein at the at least one further energy supply is a redundant energy supply unit or an energy supply unit that is associated with at least one further load unit having a reduced- energy scope of functions or having a non-exhaustive energy requirement (Energy storage devices can be complementary for redistribution, meaning redundant to one another, or a storage device associated with a load having a reduced adapted function, see p31, p29, p17, p29, p13, 6, Augst).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle and energy management as described by Fritz and incorporating multiple supply units and redundancy energy supply, as taught by Augst.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better tailor needed power demand to units that may have greater capability or capacity to meet a projected consumer demand as opposed to another supply unit, and tailor needed power demand to units that may have greater capability or capacity to meet a projected consumer demand as opposed to another supply unit thus providing a complementary redundant unit (see p17, p29, p31, p13, 6, 27, Augst).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fritz further teaches wherein the energy supply management system is further configured to: adapt the predetermined driving maneuver to obtain an adapted driving maneuver at least by changing a driving destination, a route selection, and/or a speed of travel (System adaptation of a consumer can include travelling speed, see p33, Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fritz further teaches wherein the energy supply management system is further configured to: reduce the predetermined scope of functions of the at least one load unit to obtain a reduced-energy scope of functions of the at least one load unit that is able to be covered for the predetermined driving maneuver or for the adapted driving maneuver by the providable energy determined for coverage of the energy requirement by the at least one energy supply unit (Scope of functions is reduced by setting priorities, where lower priority consumers will receive low or no power for higher priority consumers to be covered, see p9, p3, p21, Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fritz further teaches wherein the reduced-energy scope of functions is limited to safety-related functions and/or safety-critical functions (Safety relevant core functions with a highest priority that must be maintained, with the implication that lower priority consumers can be reduced if needed, thus safety relevant can be the limited case of a reduced scope, see p22, Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fritz further teaches wherein the energy supply system is configured to adapt the determination of functions of the predetermined scope of functions as safety-related functions and/or safety-critical functions on the basis of the predetermined driving maneuver, the adapted driving maneuver, an operating mode of the vehicle, and/or other active scopes of functions (Supply system adapts determined consumer functions into categories, including a scope as safety relevant functions on the basis of driving maneuvers such as steering, breaking, etc., see p12-13, Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fritz further teaches wherein the energy supply management system comprises multiple load units and is configured to at least partially compensate for the reduced-energy scope of functions of at least one of the multiple load units by way of a predetermined scope of functions or by way of an adapted scope of functions of at least one other of the multiple load units (Multiple consumers where compensation occurs to reduced power by reduced scope of functions with priority of some consumers over others, see p12-17, p3, Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fritz further teaches wherein the adapted scope of functions of the at least one other of the multiple load units is expanded at least based on the reduced-energy scope of functions of the at least one of the multiple load units (Functions with priority of some consumers over others is made to maintain totable available power, with at least a cooling function being able to be expanded with supply priority for compensation of a needed function, see p45-46, p12-13, Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fritz further teaches wherein the energy supply management system comprises multiple load units and is configured to adapt the predetermined scope of functions, the reduced-energy scope of functions or the adapted scope of functions of at least one of the multiple load units based on the predetermined scope of functions, the reduced-energy scope of functions or the adapted scope of functions of at least one other of the multiple load units (Multiple consumers where reduced scope of functions with priority of some consumers over others, thus based on functions of other consumers, see p12-17, p3, Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fritz further teaches wherein the energy supply management system is further configured to: carry out the adaptation of the predetermined scope of functions, the reduced-energy scope of functions or the adapted scope of functions according to a predetermined prioritization of functions of the respective scopes of functions and/or of load units (Scope of functions is adapted through predetermined priority categorization of consumers, see p9, p3, Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fritz further teaches wherein the predetermined prioritization is able to be adapted based on a predetermined or adapted driving maneuver (An adapted prioritization category is based on predetermined driving maneuvers such as breaking or steering, see p12-13, Abs., P7, p30-35, p28-29, Fritz).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Augst further teaches wherein at least one connected energy supply unit is a redundant energy supply unit or an energy supply unit that is associated with at least one further load unit having a reduced- energy scope of functions or having a non-exhaustive energy requirement (Energy storage devices can be complementary for redistribution, meaning redundant to one another, or a storage device associated with a load having a reduced adapted function, see p31, p29, p17, p29, p13, 6, Augst).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle and energy management as described by the combination that includes Fritz and incorporating a redundant energy supply, as taught by Augst.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better tailor needed power demand to units that may have greater capability or capacity to meet a projected consumer demand as opposed to another supply unit thus providing a complementary redundant unit (see p31, p29, p17, p29, p13, 6, Augst).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Augst further teaches wherein an energy supply management system is further configured to: determine an energy requirement of an at least one load unit for a predetermined driving maneuver or adapted driving maneuver based on one or more of: a remaining distance to a driving destination, route types, a route profile, route layouts, route disruptions, or a volume of traffic(Energy storage devices are adapted so that a specified supply can better meet the needed anticipated load requirements for energy and conservation of an anticipated driving condition, which can include consideration of level of traffic, navigation route, etc., see p35, 52, 61, p17, p29, p13, 6, 27, Augst).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle and energy management as described by the combination that includes Fritz and incorporating consideration of specified traffic conditions, as taught by Augst.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider situations that will impact a prediction of a driving state and that will influence estimated energy needed for said state (see p13, 17, p35, 52, 61, p29, p13, 6, 27, Augst).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Augst further teaches wherein an at least one energy supply system comprises at least one main energy supply unit and at least one supplementary energy supply unit, and an energy supply management system is further configured to: determine an energy that is able to be provided by the at least one supplementary energy supply unit to cover an energy requirement of an at least one load unit for a predetermined or adapted driving maneuver (Energy storage device, such as a capacitor, that is supplemental to another energy storage device, is determined as energy to be provided to provide specified supply that can better meet the needed anticipated load requirements for a driving state, see pp13, 17, p29, p13, 6, 27, Augst).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle and energy management as described by the combination that includes Fritz and incorporating energy supply unit, supplemental supply unit, and a determined energy to be provided, as taught by Augst.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better tailor needed power demand to units that have greater capability or capacity to meet a projected consumer demand of an anticipated driving condition over another supply unit (see p17, p29, p13, 6, 27, Augst).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Fritz and Augst teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fritz further teaches wherein a central processor unit of the energy management system, the at least one load unit, the at least one energy supply system, and/or the at least one supplementary energy supply unit is/are configured to: determine the energy requirement or the providable energy, and/or adapt the scope of functions of the load unit, the predetermined or adapted driving maneuver, and/or the energy supply system (At least a monitoring processing unit central to the vehicle system, determines energy requirement demand of consumers, estimated power supply, etc., , see p36, p38, clm 1, Fritz).
Claim 33 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 18.
Claim 34 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 18.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bertram et al., US. Patent No. 6,301,528 teaches control of electric consumers in a motor vehicle where a management system receives consumer requests, and a coordinator for the vehicle electrical coordinator that adjusts that receives a sum of consumer power requested and adjusts the requested power as needed in view of priorities.
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 EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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 E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights