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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 18/581222 filed on February 19, 2024. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination and are currently pending.
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 14 and 15 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. Claims 14 and 15 recite “wherein the second controller has no CAN hardware and cannot communicate on the CAN bus message protocol network”; however there is no explicit support for this limitation on the specification as originally filed.
The original specification (PGPub US 2024/0278869) discloses that the second controller is activated by direct hard wire, not by communications protocol [“the second controller(s) 16 is not on the local area network 19 but instead is capable of being activated by a signal (in some embodiments analog, in some embodiments digital) transmitted by a direct wire 18”; 0021]; and further discloses that the second controller is not on the local area network [“In contrast, the second controller(s) 16 is not on the local area network 19 but instead is capable of being activated by a signal … transmitted by a direct wire 18.” 0021].
That is the specification speaks in terms of not needing extra CAN hardware [“if a local area network 19 is used to activate the controller(s) 15, 17, a CAN transceiver module 191, 192 needs to be added to the controller 15, 17 which results in higher development costs” and “As shown in FIG. 2, the CAN controller 191 can either be a separate component or part of the controller microprocessor chip 20.”; 0020], however this is different to not having CAN hardware at all, as claimed.
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 13 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. Claim 13 recites “a VCU microprocessor chip”; without previously defining what the acronym VCU means.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20190067961) in view of Xie (WO 2019024648).
Regarding claim 1, King teaches a vehicle, being a motorcycle or an off-road vehicle [0070], the vehicle comprising:
a frame [“The utility vehicle 20 includes a utility vehicle body 22 (e.g., a chassis, a frame, etc.)”; 0070]; a plurality of wheels comprising at least one front wheel and at least one rear wheel supporting the frame “The utility vehicle 20 includes a utility vehicle body 22 (e.g., a chassis, a frame, etc.), a set of tires (or wheels) 24”; 0070];
a prime mover system supported by the frame [“The motion control system 26 of the illustrated embodiments includes, among other things, a motor system 30, a rechargeable battery system 32, and additional components 34”; 0071], at least one of the front or rear wheels being rotationally driven by torque from the prime mover system [“The motor controller 40 of some embodiments controls delivery of stored electric power from the rechargeable battery system 32 to the electric motor 42 which ultimately turns at least some of the tires 24 to move the utility vehicle 20.”; 0073];
at least one first controller supported by the frame and communicating on a CAN bus message protocol network [“the cabling 38 includes a communications bus, such as, for example, a controller area network (CAN) bus through which the motor system 30 and the rechargeable battery system 32 exchange communications 70 such as electronic CAN messages in accordance with the CAN protocol”; 0077];
at least one second controller supported by the frame [“the rechargeable battery system 32 includes a battery management system (BMS) 50 and a rechargeable battery 52.”; 0075], the second controller comprising a microprocessor chip with pins [“The processing circuitry 206 may be implemented in a variety of ways including via one or more processors (or cores) running specialized software, application specific ICs (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs)…”; 0088; while King does not explicitly recites PINs, it is well known that processing circuitry such as that disclosed in King, particularly ICs, ASICs, FPGAs, etc. are distributed in packages with PINs], the second controller having a sleep state [“the utility vehicle 20 is initially in a sleep (or unawake) mode or state in which the wakeup circuit 104 (FIG. 3) is completely unpowered”; 0094] and being able to activate out of its sleep state upon receiving an activating signal [“the user turns the maintenance switch 260 to an ON position… the wakeup circuit 104 of the BMS 50 turns on and responds by outputting the actuation signal 136 to close the contactor 106”; 0095]; and
a battery supported by the frame supplying electricity to the first and the second controllers [“the rechargeable battery system 32 includes a battery management system (BMS) 50 and a rechargeable battery 52”; 0075].
King, however, does not explicitly teach receiving the activating signal via a direct hard wired connection to at least one pin of the second controller microprocessor chip, the activating signal not involving a communications protocol.
Xie, in analogous art, teaches receiving the activating signal via a direct hard wired connection to at least one pin of the second controller microprocessor chip, the activating signal not involving a communications protocol [“share one hard-wire wakeup signal line of a BMS”; abstract, 2nd paragraph of Summary of the invention section, spanning paragraph on p.4-5 (provided translation), 1st paragraph of p.5 (provided translation), and general detailed description].
King discloses a vehicle with a frame, wheels, a prime mover system, a rechargeable battery, CAN-bus-based controller communication, and sleep/wakeup battery control. Xie discloses that vehicle control modules may be independent bus nodes that share one hard-wire wake-up signal line of a BMS.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to to combine King and Xie because both references concern vehicle control systems that coordinate battery power, controller operation, and vehicle electrical functionality, and Xie expressly teaches a hard-wire wake-up signal line for waking controllers in a vehicle control architecture. King discloses a vehicle body, propulsion system, battery system, and controller communication over a CAN bus, but King’s wakeup arrangement could be improved by adopting Xie’s hardwired wake line. Xie’s teaching would have suggested to a skilled artisan that controller wakeup may be implemented through a direct BMS wake signal rather than exclusively through protocol-based communications, thereby simplifying the wakeup arrangement and reducing system complexity while maintaining predictable controller wakeup behavior. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have been a routine substitution of one known wakeup mechanism for another, yielding predictable results and rendering the claimed combination obvious.
Regarding claim 2, King/Xie teaches the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a vehicle control unit [Xie discloses a gateway, BMS module, and PEU module including a drive control unit, OBC, and DC/DC], the vehicle control unit being directly hard wired to the second controller [Xie discloses “the drive control unit 1031, OBC 1032 and DC/DC 1033 are independent nodes of the bus, and share one hard-wire wake-up signal line of a BMS.”], the vehicle control unit also separately communicating on the CAN bus message protocol network [Xie discloses “a chassis CAN bus (10) connected to the gateway (101)”].
Regarding claim 5, King/Xie teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the prime mover system comprises a power source, and the second controller comprises a power source controller, wherein when the vehicle is started, a start command of the vehicle is sent to the power source controller and the vehicle control unit [“Suppose that the user turns the maintenance switch 260 to an ON position (e.g., by simply transitioning the maintenance switch 260 from an OFF position to the ON position, by cycling the maintenance switch 260 from the ON position to the OFF position and back to the ON position, etc.). In such a situation, the wakeup circuit 104 of the BMS 50 turns on and responds by outputting the actuation signal 136 to close the contactor 106 (FIG. 3). As a result of such a wakeup event, the contactor 106 connects the source contacts 122 to the target contacts 120 thus connecting the rechargeable battery 52 to the motor system 30 and waking the motor system 30.”; King 0095, 0120-0124] both via a direct hard wired connection to activate both the power source controller and the vehicle control unit out of their sleep states [“a power electronic unit (PEU) module (103), comprising: a drive control unit (1031) connected to the chassis CAN bus (10) and used for controlling a drive electric motor according to an accelerator pedal signal and a brake pedal signal, an on board charge (OBC) (1032) and a DC/DC (1033), with the drive control unit (1031), the OBC (1032) and the DC/DC (1033) being independent nodes of the bus, and sharing one hard-wire wakeup signal line of a BMS;”; Liu abstract].
Regarding claim 6, King/Xie teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the first controller is a charger controller, and the second controller is a battery management controller capable of monitoring charging status of a power battery, wherein when a charging port of the vehicle is opened to receive a charging gun, the charger controller is capable of activating the vehicle control unit via the CAN bus message protocol network, and then the activated vehicle control unit is capable of activating the battery management controller with an activating signal sent via the direct hard-wired connection [King: “the external charger 300 outputs (i) an initial power signal 622 and (ii) an interlock signal 624 to the utility vehicle 20.” King: “the motor controller 40 detects the presence of the interlock signal 624…” and “the control circuitry 550 of the motor controller 40 sends a communication 642 … informing the BMS 50 that the external charger 300 is connected to the connector 60.” King: “the BMS 50 closes its contactor 106…” Xie: “a charge management CMU module 123” and “BMS module 102 for managing the powering-on and powering-off of a battery, the charging and discharging of the battery, and the energy of the battery.”; [0120]–[0125], [0130]–[0135]; and Xie: “a charge management CMU module 123” and “BMS module 102 for managing the powering-on and powering-off of a battery, the charging and discharging of the battery, and the energy of the battery.”; general disclosure].
Regarding claim 10, King/Xie teach the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the vehicle further comprises a power battery for locomotion of the vehicle, and wherein the first controller comprises a body control module which monitors voltage of the battery, and when the voltage of the battery drops lower than a preset voltage value, the body control module is capable of activating the vehicle control unit out of its sleep state via an activating signal on the CAN bus message protocol network, and the vehicle control unit is capable of controlling the power battery to charge the battery [King ([0096], [0098], [0101]): “if the amount of charge is below a predefined minimum charge threshold, the BMS 50 terminates…” and “the control logic 130 of the wakeup circuit 104 starts the timer 132…”; and Xie (abstract and general description on provided translation): “a body control BCM module 109” and “the BCM module 109 is connected to the body CAN bus 20.” Xie: “the BMS module 102 … managing the powering-on and powering-off of the battery, the charging and discharging of the battery, and the energy of the battery.”].
Regarding claim 11, King/Xie teach the vehicle of claim 2, wherein when the vehicle is powered off, the second controller is inactivated, and the vehicle control unit and the first controller are both inactivated at the same time via the CAN bus message protocol network [King ([0082] and [0094]): “the utility vehicle 20 is initially in a sleep (or unawake) mode or state in which the wakeup circuit 104 … is completely unpowered.” and “termination of the actuation signal 136 enables the electromagnetic actuator 124 to return back… thus automatically separating…”].
Regarding claim 12, these claim(s) limitations are significantly similar to those of claim(s) 1; and, thus, are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 13, these claim(s) limitations are significantly similar to those of claim(s) 1 and 2; and, thus, are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20190067961) in view of Xie (WO 2019024648); and further in view of Liu (CN 111532227).
Regarding claim 3, King/Xie teach the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the activated vehicle control unit is capable of activating the second controller out of its sleep state by initiating the activating signal via the direct hard wired connection [“share one hard-wire wakeup signal line of a BMS”; abstract, 2nd paragraph of Summary of the invention section, spanning paragraph on p.4-5 (provided translation), 1st paragraph of p.5 (provided translation), and general detailed description on Xie].
King/Xie explicitly teach all the claim limitations except for the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the first controller comprises a remote communication controller connected to the vehicle control unit by the CAN bus message protocol network, wherein the remote communication controller is capable of activating the vehicle control unit out of its sleep state via the CAN bus message protocol network after receiving a remote command, and then the activated vehicle control unit is capable of activating the second controller out of its sleep state by initiating the activating signal via the direct hard wired connection.
Liu, in analogous art, teaches wherein the first controller comprises a remote communication controller connected to the vehicle control unit by the CAN bus message protocol network [“receiving the message sent by the host computer or other nodes on the CAN network; after receiving the message from the bottom layer, transmitting to the application layer for processing”; claim 1 and method description], wherein the remote communication controller is capable of activating the vehicle control unit out of its sleep state via the CAN bus message protocol network after receiving a remote command [“The invention relies on the MCU (motor controller), the MCU usually uses the control command sent by the VCU (vehicle controller) as the host on the whole CAN network as the node, the control command usually has dormancy, awaking (not dormant or active state is awake), realizing CAN communication management through the CAN message, CAN remote awakening (electrifying) MCU, remote dormancy (power down) MCU.”; p.3 on translation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combined Liu, King, and Xie because Liu teaches CAN-based wake/sleep network management, King teaches vehicle battery/control wakeup behavior, and Xie teaches a hard-wire wake-up signal line between vehicle controllers. Combining these known techniques would have predictably provided coordinated controller activation using CAN messaging for network management and a direct hardwired wake line for controller wakeup.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7-9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMON A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5744. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th: 5:30AM-4PM.
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.
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.
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights