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 is the first action on the merits for application 18/630,401. Claims 1-13 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/9/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because each instance of the label “Figure” should be changed to the abbreviation - -FIG.- - in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the braking energy” should be changed to - -a braking energy- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “direct the energy” should be changed to - -direct energy- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “the solar panel(s)” should be changed to - -the at least one solar panel- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 5, “at least one solar panel”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7, “the torque demand” should be changed to - -a torque demand- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 7-8, “transmission shaft” should be changed to - -the transmission shaft- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 2, “a transmission shaft”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2, “the energy of solar panel(s)” should be changed to - -the energy of the at least one solar panel- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 5, “at least one solar panel”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “whenever torque demand” should be changed to - -whenever the torque demand- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 7, “torque demand”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “whenever torque demand” should be changed to - -whenever the torque demand- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 7, “torque demand”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the driver” should be changed to - -a driver- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “by Cruise Control” should be changed to - -by a Cruise Control- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2, “the energy of solar panel(s)” should be changed to - -the energy of the at least one solar panel- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 5, “at least one solar panel”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “whenever torque demand” should be changed to - -whenever the torque demand- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 7, “torque demand”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the output voltage” should be changed to - -an output voltage- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the solar panel(s)” should be changed to - -the at least one solar panel- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 5, “at least one solar panel”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the input voltage” should be changed to - -an input voltage- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3, “or supercapacitor” should be changed to - -or the supercapacitor- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a supercapacitor”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “whenever torque demand” should be changed to - -whenever the torque demand- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 7, “torque demand”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “whenever torque demand” should be changed to - -whenever the torque demand- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 7, “torque demand”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “inside supercapacitor” should be changed to - -inside the supercapacitor- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a supercapacitor”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “takes over the” should be changed to - -takes over for the- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “whenever supercapacitor” should be changed to - -whenever the supercapacitor- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a supercapacitor”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the addition” should be changed to - -an addition- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “of the torque” should be changed to - -of a torque- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “and the torque” should be changed to - -and a torque- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “by prime mover” should be changed to - -by the prime mover- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 2, “a prime mover”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the vehicle chassis” should be changed to - -a vehicle chassis- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2, “between prime mover” should be changed to - -between the prime mover- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 2, “a prime mover”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “and transmission shaft” should be changed to - -and the transmission shaft- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 2, “a transmission shaft”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “wherein transmission shaft” should be changed to - -wherein the transmission shaft- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 2, “a transmission shaft”). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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 1, the phrase "such as" (see line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-11 are indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, the phrase "e.g." (see line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 is indefinite due to its dependence from indefinite Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious a vehicle including a controller that is configured to direct energy captured by the at least one solar panel either to the electric machine or to the supercapacitor as a function of a torque demand on the transmission shaft, in combination with the other elements required by independent Claim 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have no rationale, absent hindsight, to modify the prior art to derive the claimed invention since the above-mentioned limitations, in combination with the other claim limitations, are considered new and nonobvious improvements over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GRAYSON (US 2023/0261545 A1) discloses a solar charger for electric vehicles (see ABSTRACT).
PENMETSA et al. (US 2015/0266382 A1) discloses a power conversion and distribution system for a vehicle with a solar panel connection (see ABSTRACT).
MONSON (US 2013/0222098 A1) discloses a system for providing additional torque to assist a motor by a solar cell storing energy (see ABSTRACT).
CN 201128379 Y discloses a vehicle solar and super capacitance power source wherein a solar battery charges a super capacitor to supply additional energy during high motor torque demand (see ABSTRACT).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655