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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Brooking WO 2014/118678.
In Re 1, Brooking teaches
1. An electrical braking system (abstract) for an electrified vehicle (title), the electrical braking system comprising:
a battery (104 fig 3) system that selectively stores and delivers power;
an electric motor (101 figs 1-6) that is powered by the battery system and transfers drive torque to a driveline for propulsion of the vehicle and that selectively directs regenerative power to the battery system during regenerative braking in a first mode (regenerative braking pg 2 ll 1-5, pg 24 ll 25-30, pg 25 ll 4-8, 701 and or 703 fig 10);
an electrical energy management module (energy system 105 fig 3 pg 17 l 5, fig 7 is a detail of 105 energy system) having a first energy recovery system (812) that stores additional energy from the regenerative power harnessed from the electric motor in a second mode (pg 19 l 30 – pg 20 l 4) and a first energy dissipation system (braking resistor 801 fig 7) that dissipates additional energy from the regenerative power harnessed from the electric motor in a third mode (limited continuous braking mode pg 28 l 24-31); and
a controller (807 fig 7, fig 12 is a detail of controller 807) that receives an input from a brake pedal (construed as brake enable 905, the vehicle inherently has a driver and conventional user inputs including brake pedal, accelerator pedal, steering wheel) indicative of a braking event of the electrified vehicle and, responsive to the input, determines whether to direct the regenerative power in at least one of the first, second and third modes (pg 27 l 3 – pg 28 l 33)
wherein the controller determines to:
direct regenerative power in the first mode when energy storage at the battery system is not full (pg 16 l 29 – pg 17 l 5 predetermined condition to accept charge), or (optional) when the energy generation rate does not exceed the vehicle's standard ability to capture and convert the energy;
direct regenerative power in the second mode or (optional) in the third mode to either store (optional) or dissipate (resistor 801) additional energy from the regenerative power when energy storage at the battery system is full (pg 16 l 29 – pg 17 l 5 predetermined condition to accept charge excluding charging when battery unable to accept charge or battery fully charged), or (optional) when the energy generation rate exceeds the vehicle's standard ability to capture and convert the energy.
2. The electrical braking system of claim 1, wherein the first energy recovery system comprises a capacitor (812).
3. The electrical braking system of claim 2, wherein the first energy dissipation system comprises a resistor (801).
4. The electrical braking system of claim 2, wherein the first energy dissipation system comprises a resistive load bank (construed as both resistors 805 and 801 comprising a bank of resistors with known load, pg 28 ll 23-33).
In Re 10-13, the method of claims 10-13 rejected over in re 1-4 as taught by Brookings as described above.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 5,6,8,14,15,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooking WO 2014/118678 in view of Chavrier et al US 2024/0295207.
In Re 5, Brooking further teaches when energy storage at the battery system is full (pg 16 l 29 – pg 17 l 5 predetermined condition to accept charge excluding charging when battery unable to accept charge or battery fully charged), or (optional) when the energy generation rate exceeds the vehicle's standard ability to capture and convert the energy.
Brooking does not teach however Chavrier teaches a kinetic energy management module (paras 18,24,74) having a second energy recovery system (kinetic energy recovery system) that stores additional energy from the braking event in a fourth mode (mode utilizing kinetic energy), wherein the controller further determines whether to operate in the fourth mode. Chavrier further teaches kinetic energy system recovers and stores energy improving efficiency of vehicle para 18. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Chavrier’s kinetic energy recovery system to Brookings vehicle to improve vehicle efficiency.
In Re 6, Brooking as modified by Chavrier teaches the second energy recovery system includes one of (Markush) a hydraulic (optional) and mechanical (kinetic energy is inherently mechanical) accumulator.
In Re 8, Brooking does not teach however Chavrier teaches the kinetic energy management module includes a second energy dissipation system (starter motor 50 fig 3 consumes or dissipates energy) that dissipates additional energy from the braking event in a fifth mode (starting mode), wherein the controller further determines whether to operate in the fifth mode. Chavrier further teaches reliable engine starting system even after battery failure, para 5. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Chavrier’s energy dissipating electric motor to Brookings vehicle to yield reliable engine start with diverse power train.
In Re 14,15,17, method claims 14,15,17 rejected over in re 5,6,8 as taught by Brookings in view of Chavrier as described above.
Claim(s) 7,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooking WO 2014/118678 in view of Chavrier et al US 2024/0295207 and Bowen US 9,896,068.
In Re 7,16 Brooking does not teach however Bowen teaches the second energy recovery system includes an air energy recovery system (abstract col 14 ll 10-25). Bowen further teaches harnessing wasted braking energy with air system col 1 ll 20-45. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Bowen’s air recovery system to Brooking’s vehicle to utilize wasted energy.
Claim(s) 9,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooking WO 2014/118678 in view of Chavrier et al US 2024/0295207 and Tessaro et al US 2022/0410720.
In Re 9,18 Brooking does not teach however Tessaro teaches the second energy dissipation system comprises a parking brake (abstract paras 6,40,44-69). Tessaro further teaches utilizing parking brake to dissipate energy allows a smaller electric motor paras 2-7. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Tessaro’s parking brake energy dissipation during braking to Brooking’s vehicle to utilize a desirably smaller electric motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Brookings does not teach three distinct selectable modes pg 8. However, examiner finds Brookings teaches as mapped above in non-final and final rejection, three distinct selectable modes.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies pg 9 (i.e., Brooking's system cannot selectively route energy exclusively to storage (second mode) or exclusively to dissipation (third mode). Instead, it always splits the energy between both components.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues pgs 9-10 that Brooking does not teach three distinct modes. However, examiner finds last paragraph of Brooking which is taught and mapped as a separated distinct mode beyond first mode of charging battery, second mode of dissipating energy, and third mode a specifically identified “limited continuous braking mode is also possible” with “bleed resistor 805”pg 28.
Applicant argues bottom of pg 10 against claim 5 amendment and Chavrier. However, examiner finds Brookings teaches the argued limitations.
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).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in the 1/21/26 action says generative braking is useful, but it becomes problematic when the vehicle battery is already near full charge or otherwise cannot accept more power. In that situation, braking energy cannot simply be sent back to the battery. The art seeks a way to handle that excess regenerative energy without relying on conventional hydromechanical or friction braking systems. It also aims to preserve braking capability while reducing wasted energy and system complexity.
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 CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights