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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 01/22/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended, claims 6, 13, and 20 have been cancelled, and claims 21-22 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-12, 19, and 21-22 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/02/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 7-10, filed 01/22/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Nehmadi does not appear to disclose the hydrogen and temperature threshold based risk levels, as amended in claim 1 and newly added claims 21-22. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Sandahl did disclose this limitation as mapped in the final office action below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehmadi et al. (US 2022/0363289 A1), hereinafter Nehmadi, in view of Sandahl et al. (US 2022/0407174 A1), hereinafter Sandahl.
With respect to claims, 1, 8, and 15, Nehmadi discloses a vehicle system, comprising:
a camera; (see at least [0010] “receive data from sensors of the vehicle that include a camera and a lidar sensor”)
and a controller coupled to the camera, the controller comprising at least one processor coupled to at least one memory device storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to perform operations (see at least [0035] “The controller 80 is a processing apparatus configured to process information received from the sensing apparatus… a processing entity 168, and memory 170, which are implemented by suitable hardware and software.”)
including: receive data from the camera regarding at least one of an internal or an external condition of the vehicle system; (see at least [0010] “provide perception information regarding perception of an environment of the vehicle and a state of the vehicle based on the data from the sensors”)
determine that the data is indicative of a certain predefined condition; (see at least [0010] “process the perception information to detect a pattern in the perception information indicative of a predefined condition affecting the vehicle.”)
Nehmadi discloses the use of a camera and sensor to determine an internal or external condition, but does not explicitly disclose the use of a hydrogen sensor with that correlates to camera data.
However, Sandahl teaches receive data from a hydrogen sensor regarding at least one of the internal or the external condition of the vehicle system; (see at least [0007] “the off-gas detector is configured to detect a presence or concentration of… hydrogen”)
correlate the data from the hydrogen sensor and the data from the camera; (see at least [0035] “Fire suppression system 10 can monitor off-gas concentration… if otherwise undesirable conditions exist (e.g., elevated temperatures, etc.).”)
determine a level of risk for the vehicle system based on the correlation; (see at least [0033] “If the concentration or level of off-gas emitted by the battery rack(s) exceeds a threshold value (e.g., a predetermined threshold value), this may indicate that a fire is likely to occur in the near future or that thermal runaway (e.g., a rapid increase in temperature) is likely to occur in the near future.”)
and adjust operation of a vehicle powertrain based on the determined certain predefined condition and the level of risk. (see at least [0033] “The controller can activate a fire suppression apparatus to provide a fire suppressant agent to the battery racks or to other monitored areas of the vehicle to prevent the fire from occurring (e.g., to prevent or suppress combustion).”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the predefined condition of Nehmadi to include the fire risk determination disclosed in Sandahl, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor off-gas emitted by failing battery cells and thereby prevent thermal runaway and combustion of the battery cells, see Sandahl [0084].
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, Nehmadi discloses the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising: generate a fault code in response to the determination that the data is indicative of the certain predefined condition. (see at least [0101] “trigger a maintenance message when the actual impact of a fault condition, reported by a drivetrain sensor, is observed in the 3D environmental model.”)
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, Nehmadi discloses the data received from the camera comprises at least one of data indicative of a road condition, a road grade, a road signage, a temperature regarding a component of the vehicle powertrain, or a combination thereof. (see at least [0059-0069] “an environmental one of the predefined conditions affecting the vehicle 10 may relate to: the road 19, such as a shape of the road 19 (e.g., a sinuosity or straightness of the road 19, etc.), a state of the road 19… and/or damage (e.g., potholes, etc.) of the road 19; roadwork on the road 19; etc.), and/or any other characteristic of the road 19… the detected condition information 240 are vehicular, i.e., intrinsic to the vehicle 10 and resulting from one or more components of the vehicle 10, such as the powertrain 14… any other characteristic of settings of one or more components of the vehicle 10; and/or any other aspect of one or more components of the vehicle 10.”)
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Nehmadi discloses the use of a camera to obtain the internal or external condition of a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose that camera being a thermal camera.
However, Sandahl teaches the camera includes a thermal imaging camera. (see at least [0049] “temperature sensor 36 is any of an optical temperature sensor”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the predefined condition of Nehmadi to include the fire risk determination disclosed in Sandahl, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor off-gas emitted by failing battery cells and thereby prevent thermal runaway and combustion of the battery cells, see Sandahl [0084].
With respect to claim 21, Nehmadi discloses the use of a camera and sensor to determine an internal or external condition, but does not explicitly disclose the risk being determined based on hydrogen and temperature thresholds.
However, Sandahl teaches the risk level is a first level based on the hydrogen value and the temperature value being at or above a first corresponding threshold; (see at least [0035] “Fire suppression system 10 can monitor off-gas concentration… if otherwise undesirable conditions exist (e.g., elevated temperatures, etc.).” [0065] “Off-gas manager 312 can compare concentrations of off-gas of the battery racks 16 (e.g., the concentration Cj) to concentration of off-gas in the ambient or surrounding areas (e.g., a concentration Camb)” Note: If the concentration is above zero but within the ambient concentration the fire risk would be lower.)
and the risk level is a second level based on the hydrogen value and the temperature value being at or above a second corresponding threshold, greater than the first corresponding threshold. (see at least [0062] “fire suppression manager 314 is configured to use sensor data obtained by smoke detector 22 and/or temperature sensor 36 in addition to the off-gas detection to determine if fire suppression apparatuses 20 should be activated.” [0067] “Fire suppression manager 314 can receive the concentrations from off-gas manager 312 and compare the concentrations to a threshold concentration value Cthreshold” [0070] “if the rate of change of the temperature {dot over (T)}rack exceeds a corresponding temperature rate of change threshold… fire suppression manager 314 may determine that a fire is likely to occur”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the predefined condition of Nehmadi to include the fire risk determination disclosed in Sandahl, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor off-gas emitted by failing battery cells and thereby prevent thermal runaway and combustion of the battery cells, see Sandahl [0084].
With respect to claim 22, Nehmadi discloses the use of a camera and sensor to determine an internal or external condition, but does not explicitly disclose different control based on a difference in the determined risk.
However, Sandahl teaches adjusting operation of the vehicle powertrain based on the determined certain predefined condition and the level of risk comprises:
providing a warning notification via an input/output device responsive to the level of risk being the first level, (see at least [0078] “if the temperature at battery racks 16 begins increasing at a rapid pace (e.g., above a corresponding rate of change threshold value) for at least a time interval… fire suppression manager 314 may provide the shut-off command to battery manager 316 without providing the activation signals to fire suppression apparatuses 20.” [0081] “alert manager 310 can alert the operator via alert devices 14 that battery racks 16 were shut off due to high temperatures but that fire suppression apparatuses 20 were not activated.”)
and operating a fan to cool a vehicle component, causing a coolant to flow at least partly through the vehicle powertrain, ceasing use of hydrogen fuel, or a combination thereof, responsive to the level of risk being the second level. (see at least [0091] “if the temperature exceeds a threshold value), process 400 may proceed to step 410 and activate fire suppression apparatuses 20 to suppress the fire.” [0088] “Process 400 includes activating the fire suppression system or fire suppression apparatuses of the vehicle (step 410) in response to the concentration or level of off-gas in battery rack 16 being greater than (or greater than or equal to) the threshold concentration value Cthreshold”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the predefined condition of Nehmadi to include the fire risk determination disclosed in Sandahl, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor off-gas emitted by failing battery cells and thereby prevent thermal runaway and combustion of the battery cells, see Sandahl [0084].
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehmadi in view of Sandahl as applied to claim 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Dudar (US 2020/0118367 A1), hereinafter Dudar.
With respect to claim 3, 10, and 17, Nehmadi discloses the adjustment of the powertrain in response to the condition of the vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the increase of an output to the powertrain using an electric motor.
However, Dudar teaches the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising: generate a command to increase a power output from an electric motor to meet or substantially meet a vehicle power demand. (see at least [0027] “Alternatively, assist or mild hybrid embodiments may also be employed, wherein the engine is the primary source of torque and the electric motor selectively adds torque during specific conditions, such as during a tip-in event. In some examples, vehicle system 100 may be an autonomously driven car.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the signals provided to the powertrain in Nehmadi to include the torque adjustment disclosed in Dudar, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to reducing pumping losses to increase engine efficiency, see Dudar [0054].
With respect to claim 4, 11, and 18, Nehmadi discloses the adjustment of the powertrain in response to the condition of the vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the increase or decrease of an output to the powertrain.
However, Dudar teaches adjusting operation of the vehicle powertrain comprises at least one of increasing or decreasing a power output relative to a current power output from the vehicle powertrain. (see at least [0027] “wherein the engine is the primary source of torque and the electric motor selectively adds torque during specific conditions, such as during a tip-in event.” [0054] “During selected conditions, such as when the full torque capability of the engine is not needed, one or more cylinders in a first cylinder bank 215A and a second cylinder bank 215B may be selected for deactivation (herein also referred to as a VDE mode of operation)…To meet the torque requirements, the engine produces the same amount of torque on those cylinders for which the injectors remain enabled.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the signals provided to the powertrain in Nehmadi to include the torque adjustment disclosed in Dudar, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to reducing pumping losses to increase engine efficiency, see Dudar [0054].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669