DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 12/15/2025.
In the amendment Claims 1-19 remain pending. Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claim.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 17 and 19 are 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. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Withdrawn Rejections
5. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-9, 11-12 and 14-19 with cited reference of Kuang (U.S. U.S. Pub 2003/0085576) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
6. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 10 with cited references of over Kuang (U.S. Pub 2003/0085576) in view of Kanzaki (U.S. Pub 2023/0234589).
7. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 10 with cited references of over Kuang (U.S. Pub 2003/0085576) in view of Books (U.S. Pub 2024/0166188).
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 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.
8. Claim 1-7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (U.S. Pub 2011/0172869, filed Mar. 25, 2011 and previously cited in the 892 dated 9/24/2025) in view of Kuang (U.S. U.S. Pub 2003/0085576, filed Nov. 8, 2001).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Bell discloses A method of control in a battery electric vehicle, comprising:
monitoring an operating parameter of an electric motor in a propulsion system of a vehicle (see paragraphs 17 and 29, discloses monitoring motor current to maintain a stopped state including torque, speed and temperature of the traction motor)
monitoring a speed of the vehicle (see paragraphs 7 and 19, discloses monitoring the speed of the vehicle to determine whether it is stopped on a hill, including storing the value when a predetermined speed is achieved); and
actuating by a vehicle controller a brake of the vehicle when the operating parameter is beyond an operating parameter threshold and the speed is at or below a speed threshold, wherein the brake is not part of the propulsion system (see paragraphs 14-15, 17, 19, discloses parking brake function of an electromechanical brake 38 is engaged by controller 40 once hill-hold condition is detected. Hill hold is performed when vehicle speed reaches zero. Furthermore, the electromechanical brake 38 is described as a sperate component from the propulsion motor. Brake 38 acts on motor 12 as a distinct braking component). Bell discloses determining if a propulsion system is being used to hold the vehicle still when below a speed threshold and then applies the brake system via controller to reduce or terminate motor actuation. Bell however fails to teach an operating parameter threshold as a trigger. Kuang teaches monitoring traction motor temperature against a predetermined threshold as the operating parameter trigger in paragraph 34. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have accounted for motor temperature as a threshold parameter for triggering actuation of brakes. Hill acknowledges that motor heating is a concern in hill-hold context and uses brake engagement and motor current shutoff to manage motor temperature in paragraph 17. Thus, using temperature has an operating parameter threshold trigger for control response prevents motor overheating.
Regarding Dependent claim 2, Bell discloses determining if a propulsion system is being used to hold the vehicle still when below a speed threshold and then applies the brake system via controller to reduce or terminate motor actuation. Bell however fails to teach an operating parameter threshold comprising temperature as a trigger. Kuang discloses wherein the operating parameter is a temperature of the electric motor and the operating threshold related to a temperature threshold of the electric motor (see paragraphs 25, 27 and 34). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have accounted for motor temperature as a threshold parameter for triggering actuation of brakes. Hill acknowledges that motor heating is a concern in hill-hold context and uses brake engagement and motor current shutoff to manage motor temperature in paragraph 17. Thus, using temperature has an operating parameter threshold trigger for control response prevents motor overheating.
Regarding Dependent claim 3, with dependency of claim 2, Bell discloses wherein the speed threshold is a vehicle speed of zero mph (see paragraphs 17 and 19, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 4, with dependency of claim 1, Bell discloses determining if a propulsion system is being used to hold the vehicle still when below a speed threshold and then applies the brake system via controller to reduce or terminate motor actuation. Bell however fails to teach an operating parameter threshold comprising temperature as a trigger. Kuang discloses wherein the operating threshold is actuation of a throttle input of the electric motor and the speed threshold is met when the vehicle is not moving (see paragraphs 25-30, discloses actuation of the throttle input via high torque at near zero speed). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have accounted for motor temperature as a threshold parameter for triggering actuation of brakes. Hill acknowledges that motor heating is a concern in hill-hold context and uses brake engagement and motor current shutoff to manage motor temperature in paragraph 17. Thus, using temperature has an operating parameter threshold trigger for control response prevents motor overheating.
Regarding Dependent claim 5, with dependency of claim 4, Bell discloses wherein after, the brake is actuated, the method includes reducing by the controller an electrical input to the electric motor to reduce a torque output from the electric motor (see paragraph 17, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 6, with dependency of claim 5, Bell discloses wherein the torque output from the motor is reduced to zero (see paragraph 17, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 4, Bell discloses which also includes determining when the vehicle is being commanded to move and then releasing the brake to permit vehicle movement (see paragraph 18, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 12, with dependency of claim 11, Bell discloses determining if a propulsion system is being used to hold the vehicle still when below a speed threshold and then applies the brake system via controller to reduce or terminate motor actuation. Bell however fails to teach an operating parameter threshold comprising temperature as a trigger. Kuang discloses wherein determining that a propulsion system is being actuated to hold a vehicle still is accomplished by comparison of a throttle input actuation and a vehicle speed (see paragraphs 25-30, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have accounted for motor temperature as a threshold parameter for triggering actuation of brakes. Hill acknowledges that motor heating is a concern in hill-hold context and uses brake engagement and motor current shutoff to manage motor temperature in paragraph 17. Thus, using temperature has an operating parameter threshold trigger for control response prevents motor overheating.
Regarding Dependent claim 15, with dependency of claim 11, Bell discloses determining if a propulsion system is being used to hold the vehicle still when below a speed threshold and then applies the brake system via controller to reduce or terminate motor actuation. Bell however fails to teach an operating parameter threshold comprising temperature as a trigger. Kuang discloses wherein determining that the propulsion system is not capable of moving the vehicle is accomplished as a function of either: a) a comparison of the state of actuation of a throttle input and the resulting torque output from the propulsion system; or b) the temperature of a motor of the propulsion system (see paragraphs 25-26 & 29, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have accounted for motor temperature as a threshold parameter for triggering actuation of brakes. Hill acknowledges that motor heating is a concern in hill-hold context and uses brake engagement and motor current shutoff to manage motor temperature in paragraph 17. Thus, using temperature has an operating parameter threshold trigger for control response prevents motor overheating.
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (U.S. Pub 2011/0172869, filed Mar. 25, 2011 and previously cited in the 892 dated 9/24/2025) in view of Kuang (U.S. U.S. Pub 2003/0085576, filed Nov. 8, 2001) further in view of Kanzaki (U.S. Pub 2023/0234589, filed Dec. 29, 2022).
Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 1, Bell discloses determining if a propulsion system is being used to hold the vehicle still when below a speed threshold and then applies the brake system via controller to reduce or terminate motor actuation. Bell however fails to teach an operating parameter threshold as a trigger. Kuang teaches monitoring traction motor temperature against a predetermined threshold as the operating parameter trigger in paragraph 34. Kuang fails to disclose determining a difference between actual and predetermined torque. Kannaki discloses wherein a predetermined torque output from the electric motor for a given electrical input is compared to an actual torque from the electric motor in response to the given electrical input to the electric motor, and the operating parameter threshold is met when the actual torque is less than the predetermined torque by a threshold amount (see paragraphs 43-44, discloses determining a stall condition based on calculation of a difference between output torque and torque from the engine speed). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have detected engine stall condition based on the actual torque being less than the amount generated via electric motor. One motivation is to apply brake torque when a stall condition is detected thereby preventing vehicle rollback has outlined by Kanzaki in paragraph 45.
10. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (U.S. Pub 2011/0172869, filed Mar. 25, 2011 and previously cited in the 892 dated 9/24/2025) in view of Kuang (U.S. U.S. Pub 2003/0085576, filed Nov. 8, 2001) further in view of Books (U.S. Pub 2024/0166188, filed Sep. 21, 2020).
Regarding Dependent claim 13, with dependency of claim 12, Bell discloses determining if a propulsion system is being used to hold the vehicle still when below a speed threshold and then applies the brake system via controller to reduce or terminate motor actuation. Bell however fails to teach an operating parameter threshold as a trigger. Kuang teaches monitoring traction motor temperature against a predetermined threshold as the operating parameter trigger in paragraph 34. Kuang fails to teach determining an inclination of the vehicle. Books discloses detecting an inclination of the vehicle (see paragraphs 23-25, discloses determining the slope of the vehicle). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have measured a vehicle inclination to determine the proper amount of hold torque required to prevent vehicle rollback.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claim(s) 11, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuang (U.S. U.S. Pub 2003/0085576, published May 8, 2003).
Regarding Independent claim 11, Bell discloses A method of controlling a vehicle, comprising:
determining either: a) that a propulsion system is being actuated to hold a vehicle still; or b) the propulsion system is not capable of moving the vehicle (see paragraphs 6 and 17, discloses controlling a vehicle by engaging a parking brake function via electromechanical braking. Further disclosing monitoring conditions to determine if vehicle is stopped by motor on a hill for a selectable period of time X); and
applying by a controller of the vehicle a brake system of the vehicle and reducing or terminating actuation of the propulsion system where the brake system is or is part of either: 1) a driving brake system that is used during operation of the vehicle to slow and stop a moving vehicle or to hold an operating vehicle stopped; or 2) a park brake system used to prevent movement of a parked vehicle that is not being operated (see paragraphs 15 and 17, discloses parking brake function of the electromechanical brake 38 is engaged by controller 40 which controls its actuation. Further disclosing that current supplied to motor 12 is then turned off after brake engagement. In addition, during drive conditions brake 38 is controlled by controller 40 to vary braking force based on brake pedal position thereby functioning as a driving brake system. Also explicitly teaching parking brake function is engaged when vehicle is stopped on a hill including emergency brake function of brake 38).
Regarding Dependent claim 14, Bell discloses wherein reducing or terminating actuation of the propulsion system is accomplished by the controller reducing or termination a supply of electricity to an electric motor of the propulsion system without regard to whether a throttle input of the vehicle is being actuated (see paragraph 17, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 16, with dependency of claim 11, Bell discloses wherein the brake system is one or both of a normal driving brake system of the vehicle and a parking brake system of the vehicle (see paragraph 15, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 18, with dependency of claim 11, Bell discloses which also includes determining when the vehicle is being commanded to move and then releasing the brake to permit vehicle movement (see paragraph 18, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
3/17/2026