DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 15 April 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1 and 16. Applicant did not cancel or add any claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and corresponding arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that “the limitations of claim 9 recite specific operations performed "in response to detecting an environmental conservation condition," where the operations includes "charging the battery pack using the electric machine during a regenerative braking operation" and "discharging power using the electric machine based on a setting obtained from a current reference setting, a drive input, and a desired surplus loss limit."”. Specifically, Applicant asserted that King does not disclose a nexus between a specific vehicle operating mode to the detection of "an environmental indicator" and that “King does not provide any detail as to how the vehicle controller achieves "an ozone-reduced operating mode" let alone discloses the specific operations recited in claim 9”. Examiner does not agree.
It is noted that all of Applicant’s arguments focus on the secondary reference of King. However, almost all of the elements and limitations of the claims are taught by Okubo; only one element is disclosed by King. Therefore, in response to these assertions against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant never argued the combination of Okubo and King. Applicant asserted that King did not disclose elements that were clearly taught by Okubo, such as responding to an environmental condition. Examiner does not need to have the secondary teaching reference disclose a “specific vehicle operating mode” when that “specific mode” is already taught by the primary reference.
Relatedly, Examiner is not familiar with a passage in the MPEP that requires a “nexus” between teachings within the same prior art reference; Examiner is not required to provide a “nexus” between different prior art disclosures. The MPEP is silent on a “nexus” being a legal requirement for a proper obviousness rejection. The closest thing in the MPEP to Applicant’s “nexus” is for the prior art to be reasonably related to the technology of the claimed invention and having a teaching or motivation to combine the references. Applicant should base their assertions on what is required by statue and case law (as summarized in the MPEP).
Applicant further asserts that King does not provide any detail as to how the vehicle controller achieves "an ozone-reduced operating mode" let alone discloses the specific operations recited in claim 9”. This is not persuasive.
As discussed above, it is not a requirement of the Examiner that detail regarding “how” the vehicle of King achieves an operation mode when the mode is not a part of the claimed invention or is already taught by the primary reference. The knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to achieve the “how”. All that is necessary is that the reference teach a conservation operating mode based on a detected environmental condition. King does this.
The rejection is maintained.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0045430) in view of King, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0288132).
For claim 1, Okubo discloses a vehicle comprising: a battery pack; an electric machine; and a control system including one or more controllers (see Fig. 1), the control system configured to detect that an environmental condition has occurred in an area around the vehicle (see para. 0016), select a regenerative braking operation to reduce a speed of the vehicle in response to detecting the environmental condition (see para. 0016), and to discharge power using the electric machine to increase operation loss of the electric machine based on a setting obtained from a current reference setting, drive input, and a desired surplus loss limit (see paras. 0020, 0019, input; 0021-0022, loss limit) in response to detecting the environmental condition (see para. 0016). Okubo does not explicitly disclose a conservation condition.
A teaching from King discloses operation of a vehicle based on a conservation condition – as defined in Applicant’s Specification – (see paras. 0016, 0020, environmental condition, “ozone alert” defines a zone, operating mode changes based on definition of zone; 0023-0024, zone operation includes reducing emissions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Okubo to include the teachings of King based on an expectation of success and the motivation to improve, as a vehicle passes or translates from one zone to another zone, a controller on the vehicle recognizes that the translation is occurring (or about to occur) and controls the vehicle to switch an operating mode of a vehicle from a first operating mode in the first zone to a second operating mode in the second zone (see para. 0022).
In an alternative interpretation of King for claim 1, King discloses the entirety of the claimed limitations of detect that an environmental conservation condition has occurred in an area around the vehicle (see para. 0020, detect ozone alert), select a regenerative braking operation to reduce a speed of the vehicle in response to detecting the environmental conservation condition (see para. 0032, hypothetically possible to be operating in an “ozone alert” zone and “take advantage of a down grade”). The remaining portions of the rejection remain the same.
Regarding claim 2, Okubo further teaches wherein the drive input includes at least one of a normalized speed and a torque (see para. 0016).
Referring to claim 3, King further discloses wherein the environmental conservation condition is detected using at least one of an air quality index, a vehicle location, or a location of a restrictive area relative to a vehicle travel route (see paras. 0015-0016, 0021-0023).
Pertaining to claim 4, Okubo further discloses wherein the control system is configured to discharge power based on the setting in further response to an energy level of the battery pack satisfying an energy level condition, wherein energy level is a state of charge of the battery pack (see paras. 0016-0017).
With reference to claim 6, Okubo discloses the setting is obtained using a loss-current correlation that associates a current reference setting with the drive input and the desired surplus loss (see para. 0010, drive input; paras. 0011, 0013, surplus loss; paras. 0016-0017, current reference setting), and the loss-current correlation is configured to define the setting using a high surplus current reference (SCR) setting associated with a high surplus loss limit (see para. 0021).
Okubo does not explicitly disclose a low SCR setting with a low surplus loss limit. However, as Okubo teaches a high surplus reference and a high loss limit, incorporating a low SCR setting and low surplus loss limit would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when motivated to establish a range of acceptable values to facilitate loss in the system. It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Okubo to include a low SCR setting with a low surplus limit and a range of values based on an expectation of success and the motivation to improve a controller, for a given operating point of the electric machine, may schedule a method of commutation for switches of the inverter during presence of a negative wheel torque request according to a charge rate corresponding to the negative wheel torque request, temperatures of the electric machine and/or inverter, and/or a battery state of charge (see abstract).
Continuing with the claim, Okubo does not explicitly disclose the last limitation. However, because it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to establish a range having a high and low SCR setting with associated loss limits (see para. 0021), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that loss limit would fall between the high and low loss limits based on the motivation to improve a controller, for a given operating point of the electric machine, may schedule a method of commutation for switches of the inverter during presence of a negative wheel torque request according to a charge rate corresponding to the negative wheel torque request, temperatures of the electric machine and/or inverter, and/or a battery state of charge (see abstract).
With regards to claim 7, Okubo does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, interpolation is a concept that is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpolate the high and low SCR setting based on the motivation to improve a controller, for a given operating point of the electric machine, may schedule a method of commutation for switches of the inverter during presence of a negative wheel torque request according to a charge rate corresponding to the negative wheel torque request, temperatures of the electric machine and/or inverter, and/or a battery state of charge (see abstract).
Pertaining to claim 8, Okubo further teaches a power electronic system including an inverter to control power to the electric machine in accordance with the setting (see para. 0012).
For claim 9, Okubo discloses a method for controlling a vehicle having an electric machine and a battery pack (see Fig. 1), comprising: charging the battery pack using the electric machine during a regenerative braking operation in response to detecting an environmental condition (see paras. 0010, 0016); and discharging power using the electric machine (see paras. 0013-0017) based on a setting obtained from a current reference setting, a drive input, and a desired surplus loss limit (see paras. 0020, 0019, input; 0021-0022, loss limit) in response to detecting an environmental condition (see para. 0016) and an energy level of the battery pack satisfying an energy level condition (see para. 0016).
Okubo does not explicitly disclose a conservation condition. A teaching from King discloses operation of a vehicle based on a conservation condition – as defined in Applicant’s Specification – (see paras. 0016, 0020, environmental condition, “ozone alert” defines a zone, operating mode changes based on definition of zone; 0023-0024, zone operation includes reducing emissions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Okubo to include the teachings of King based on an expectation of success and the motivation to improve, as a vehicle passes or translates from one zone to another zone, a controller on the vehicle recognizes that the translation is occurring (or about to occur) and controls the vehicle to switch an operating mode of a vehicle from a first operating mode in the first zone to a second operating mode in the second zone (see para. 0022).
The alternative interpretation applied to claim 1 is also applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Okubo further teaches wherein the drive input includes at least one of a normalized speed and a torque (see para. 0016).
Claim 11 defines substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 3.
With reference to claim 12, Okubo further discloses wherein the energy level is a state of charge of the battery pack (see para. 0010).
Claim 14 defines substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 6.
Claim 15 defines substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 7.
Claim 16 defines substantially similar subject matter to that of claims 9, 4 and 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim claims 9, 4 and 6.
Additionally for newly amended claim 16, defining a limitation to include “not detecting” a condition is interpreted as the condition not happening or not existing. Accordingly, if the condition does not exist, the limitation is interpreted as equivalent to the generic act of braking a vehicle to reduce speed. Official Notice is taken in that braking is used to reduce speed of a vehicle during normal operating conditions.
Claim 17 defines substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 2.
Claim 18 defines substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 3.
Claim 19 defines substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 6.
Claim 20 defines substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 7.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0045430) and King, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0288132), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Modak, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0226922).
With reference to claim 5, Okubo does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Modak discloses wherein the desired surplus loss limit is defined based on a derate loss ratio and a temperature measurement (see para. 0092). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Okubo to include the teachings of Modak based on an expectation of success and the motivation to improve determining a fraction of total energy being supplied by the power inverter module(s) during braking that needs to be dissipated (e.g., as heat) to maintain consistent vehicle performance during braking. (see para. 0092).
Claim 13 defines substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 5.
Conclusion
As previously stated, Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights