CTNF 18/799,134 CTNF 97448 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 2. Claim s 13-17 have been canceled. 3. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn. 4. Claims 1-12 and 21-25 are pending in Instant Application. Priority 5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 6. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 08/09/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Examiner’s Note 7. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. Election/Restrictions 8. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: Applicant has elected Invention I for examination with traverse . The traverse has been fully considered. The arguments presented do not persuade the examiner that the restriction requirement was improper. The inventions as claimed are independent and distinct because they are directed to different statutory categories and require separate and distinct searches. Examination of all inventions in a single application would result in an undue search burden. Invention III is directed to a power system in which is configured to decrease an output value of the first electric power load and determine an output value of the first electric power based on information generated by the navigation device. However, Invention I is directed to a power system in which is configured to adjusting power loads based on different parameters. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is maintained. Claims directed to the non-elected inventions/species are withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142(b). 18-22 AIA Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 9. 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. 10. 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-12 and 21-24 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. Claim 1 recites “electric power, of a vehicle, configured for travelling” and “first electric power…configured for non-travelling”. It is unclear whether the “electric power” itself is configured, the vehicle is configured, or the motor/load is configured. This renders the scope uncertain because “configured for travelling” modifies “electric power” rather than the motor system or vehicle operation. Therefore, the bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given. Claim 1, 3-4, 8-9 and 24 recite “output value of the first electric power load” The claims do not define whether the “output value” refers to: voltage, current, power, or another parameter. Since multiple interpretations are possible, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given. Claim 2 recites “adjust… the first electric power within a larger range compared to an adjustable range of the electric power” The claim fails to define: what constitutes the “range”, the baseline for how the larger range is compared to an adjustable range, or how the ranges are measured. Also, the “electric power” in the last line lacks antecedent basis because multiple electric powers are recited in claim 1. Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given. Claim 3 recites “available output value… lower than a reference load output value” The claim does not disclose how the “reference load output value” is determined or what component establishes the value. Thus, this limitation is indefinite. Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given. Claims 5 and 6 recites “load output lowering limit commanding signal” The claim does not specify the source of the signal, the structure generating the signal, or the meaning of “lowering limit”. There is also no indication how the commanding signal relates to the parameters being increased. Thus, this limitation is indefinite. Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given. Claims 8 recites “information… about terrain to the charging station” The claim does not specify what is terrain parameter is meant to be interpreted. Is it grade? Elevation? Road type? Any measurable terrain parameter? Thus, this limitation is indefinite. Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 11. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 non-obviousness. 07-21-aia AIA 12. Claim s 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20200317057) in view of Lee (US 20230013714 . Regarding Claim 1, Salter discloses A power system comprising: (Salter, see at least [Abstract, [0002-0005]] wherein disclosed is an electric vehicle power management system including propulsion power distribution and auxiliary load control) a motor system configured to use an electric power, of a vehicle, configured for travelling, (Salter, see at least [0018, 0021-0024, and 0026-0028] wherein disclosed is an electric propulsion vehicle including traction power supplied to propulsion systems) wherein the motor system is configured to control, based on the electric power, a movement of the vehicle; (Salter, see at least [Abstract, [0018, 0021-0024, and 0026-0028] wherein disclosed is an electric propulsion vehicle including traction power supplied to propulsion systems) a first electric power load configured to use a first electric power, of the vehicle, configured for non-travelling; (Salter, see at least [0024-0038] wherein disclosed is auxiliary vehicle loads consuming electrical energy separate from propulsion systems. The electric machine may be sed to deliver electrical energy to external, auxiliary devices during power take-off. It can also be used to delivery electrical energy to air conditioning. This mode of operation many be employed during braking, low speeds, while stopped at traffic lights, and more.) a second electric power load configured to use a second electric power, of the vehicle, configured for non-travelling, wherein the second electric power is lower than the first electric power; (Salter, see at least [0035-0044] wherein disclosed is the prioritization among auxiliary loads having differing power demands. The priority ranking may be arranged from highest current draw to lowest current draw. The powering of different devices can occur. *** It would have been obvious that certain auxiliary loads consume less power than other different auxiliary loads, and either auxiliary load would have obviously been lower in electric power than the other, when the teachings of Salter have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.) a battery configured to provide the electric power configured for travelling and the first electric power configured for non-travelling; (Salter, see at least [0019-0030] in which disclosed is a vehicle battery supplying propulsion and auxiliary electrical systems.) Salter does not explicitly disclose and a controller configured to adjust, based on a state of charge (SOC) value of the battery, an output value of the first electric power load. However, Lee discloses and a controller configured to adjust, based on a state of charge (SOC) value of the battery, an output value of the first electric power load. (Lee, see at least [0035] wherein a controller is configured to control the amount or order of distributing of the load amount of the load. The controller receives information from the batteries, and input of information related to the charge/discharge state, and more. Then the controller determines the output based on control parameters.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of adjusting the output of an electric power load based on the battery’s state-of-charge is important because it directly impacts battery health, system efficiency, and operational stability. This would further improve the managing or controlling of EVs and ensuring that the battery is being protected from overcharging and maintaining optimal performance. Regarding Claim 2, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 1, (see rejection above) Lee further discloses wherein the controller is configured to adjust, based on the SOC value of the battery, an output value of the first electric power within a larger range compared to an adjustable range of the electric power. (Lee, see at least [0035] wherein a controller is configured to control the amount or order of distributing of the load amount of the load. The controller receives information from the batteries, and input of information related to the charge/discharge state, and more. Then the controller determines the output based on control parameters.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of adjusting the distributing of the load amount when certain parameters are being met. This would further improve the managing or controlling of EVs as altering the reference load output would ensure the adjusting of control setpoints to maintain system performance and safety. Regarding Claim 3, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 1, (see rejection above) Lee further discloses wherein the controller is configured to decrease, based on whether an available output value of the first electric power load being lower than a reference load output value and the SOC value being lower than a reference low SOC value, an output value of the first electric power load. (Lee, see at least [0035] wherein a controller is configured to control the amount or order of distributing of the load amount of the load. The controller receives information from the batteries, and input of information related to the charge/discharge state, and more. Then the controller determines the output based on control parameters.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of adjusting the distributing of the load amount when certain parameters are being met. This would further improve the managing or controlling of EVs as altering the reference load output would ensure the adjusting of control setpoints to maintain system performance and safety. Regarding Claim 4, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 3, (see rejection above) Lee further discloses wherein the controller is configured to, based on the battery being charged after the output value of the first electric power load being decreased, restore an output value of the first electric power load. (Lee, see at least [0035] wherein a controller is configured to control the amount or order of distributing of the load amount of the load. The controller receives information from the batteries, and input of information related to the charge/discharge state, and more. Then the controller determines the output based on control parameters.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of adjusting the distributing of the load amount when certain parameters are being met. This would further improve the managing or controlling of EVs as altering the reference load output would ensure the adjusting of control setpoints to maintain system performance and safety. Regarding Claim 9, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 1, (see rejection above) Lee further discloses wherein the controller is configured to increase, based on the SOC value of the battery being higher than a reference high SOC value, an output value of the first electric power load . (Lee, see at least [0035] wherein a controller is configured to control the amount or order of distributing of the load amount of the load. The controller receives information from the batteries, and input of information related to the charge/discharge state, and more. Then the controller determines the output based on control parameters.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of adjusting the distributing of the load amount when certain parameters are being met. This would further improve the managing or controlling of EVs as altering the reference load output would ensure the adjusting of control setpoints to maintain system performance and safety. Regarding Claim 10, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 9, (see rejection above) Lee further discloses wherein the controller is configured to turn on, based on the SOC value of the battery being higher than the reference high SOC value and the first electric power load being turned off, the first electric power load. (Lee, see at least [0034-0035] wherein a controller is configured to control the amount or order of distributing of the load amount of the power load. The controller receives information from the batteries, and input of information related to the charge/discharge state, and more. Then the controller determines the output based on control parameters.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of adjusting the distributing of the load amount when certain parameters are being met. This would further improve the managing or controlling of EVs as altering the reference load output would ensure the adjusting of control setpoints to maintain system performance and safety . 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20200317057) in view of Lee (US 20230013714) in further view of Moriya (US 20200313458) . Regarding Claim 5, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 3, (see rejection above) Salter does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to increase, based on reception of a load output lowering limit command signal, at least one of the reference low SOC value and the reference load output value. However, Moriya discloses wherein the controller is configured to increase, based on reception of a load output lowering limit command signal, at least one of the reference low SOC value and the reference load output value. (Moriya, see at least [0057-0058] wherein the controller may adjust the deciding reference range corresponding to the voltage of the battery based on certain parameters.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Moriya to include the capability of increasing a reference load value based on certain parameters being met. This would further improve the managing or controlling of EVs as altering the reference load output would ensure the adjusting of control setpoints to maintain system performance and safety. Regarding Claim 6, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 1, (see rejection above) Salter does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to increase, based on reception of a load output lowering limit command signal, a lower output value limit of the first electric power load. However, Moriya discloses wherein the controller is configured to increase, based on reception of a load output lowering limit command signal, a lower output value limit of the first electric power load. (Moriya, see at least [0070] wherein the controller may adjust the lower limit of the reference range that is used control the voltage of the electric power receiver when certain parameters are being met.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Moriya to include the capability of increasing a reference load value based on certain parameters being met. This would further improve the managing or controlling of EVs as altering the reference load output would ensure the adjusting of control setpoints to maintain system performance and safety . 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim s 7-8, 12 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20200317057) in view of Lee (US 20230013714) in further view of Kobayashi (US 20220266704) . Regarding Claim 7, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 1, (see rejection above) Salter does not explicitly disclose wherein the second electric power load comprises a navigation device disposed on the vehicle, and the controller is configured to control, based on the SOC value of the battery being lower than a reference low SOC value, the navigation device to generate charging station guidance information. However, Kobayashi discloses wherein the second electric power load comprises a navigation device disposed on the vehicle, and the controller is configured to control, based on the SOC value of the battery being lower than a reference low SOC value, the navigation device to generate charging station guidance information. (Kobayashi, see at least [0043-0048] wherein power is routed from a power storage device to the power exporter. The charge state of the power storage device is communicated by the vehicle to the power exporter computer device. Based on the transmitted current charge state, an available range for the vehicle is determined. The power exporter computer device/user computer device then compares the current available range to a nearby charging station. The user computer devices uses a mapping to determine a route from a current location to a charging location.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Kobayashi to include the capability of using distance information to a charging location and remaining battery charge to supply power to a navigational device. This would further improve the adjustment of auxiliary loads to assist in predicting optimization of EV route planning systems. Regarding Claim 8, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 7, (see rejection above) Salter does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine an output value of the first electric power load based on at least one of: information, generated by the navigation device, about a remaining distance to a charging station, or information, generated by the navigation device, about terrain to the charging station. However, Kobayashi discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine an output value of the first electric power load based on at least one of: information, generated by the navigation device, about a remaining distance to a charging station, or information, generated by the navigation device, about terrain to the charging station. (Kobayashi, see at least [0043-0048] and [0051-0053] wherein is the distance to the charging station being generated exceeds the current available range, the power exporter computer device disables the flow of power to the power consumer to prevent the current available range from going below the second distance.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Kobayashi to include the capability of using distance information to a charging location and remaining battery charge to supply power to a navigational device. This would further improve the adjustment of auxiliary loads to assist in predicting optimization of EV route planning systems. Regarding Claim 12, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 1, (see rejection above) Salter does not explicitly disclose wherein the first electric power load comprises a refrigerator. However, Kobayashi discloses wherein the first electric power load comprises a refrigerator. (Kobayashi, see at least [0024] wherein the flow of power can be controlled to one or more power consumers such as refrigerators.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Kobayashi to include the capability proving energy to a refrigerator, as when in non-travelling conditions, the refrigerator is able to keep loads in certain temperatures. This would further improve situations wherein large amounts of electric power are needed for short periods of time to ensure that the internal temperature of a refrigerator on a vehicle is maintained. Regarding Claim 24, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 8, (see rejection above) and wherein the motor system is configured to use regenerative braking in a braking situation of the vehicle. (Salter, see at least [0024] wherein the electric machine may supply mechanical output to the driveline by using electrical energy stored in an electrical battery. This may be employed to achieve efficiency gains through regenerative braking, increased engine efficiency, etc.) Salter does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to decrease an output value of the first electric power load, However, Lee discloses wherein the controller is configured to decrease an output value of the first electric power load, (Lee, see at least [0035] wherein a controller is configured to control the amount or order of distributing of the load amount of the load. The controller receives information from the batteries, and input of information related to the charge/discharge state, and more. Then the controller determines the output based on control parameters.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of adjusting the distributing of the load amount when certain parameters are being met. This would further improve the managing or controlling of EVs as altering the reference load output would ensure the adjusting of control setpoints to maintain system performance and safety. Regarding Claim 25, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 7, (see rejection above) Salter does not explicitly disclose wherein the first electric power load comprises a refrigerator. However, Kobayashi discloses wherein the first electric power load comprises a refrigerator. (Kobayashi, see at least [0024] wherein the flow of power can be controlled to one or more power consumers such as refrigerators.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Kobayashi to include the capability proving energy to a refrigerator, as when in non-travelling conditions, the refrigerator is able to keep loads in certain temperatures. This would further improve situations wherein large amounts of electric power are needed for short periods of time to ensure that the internal temperature of a refrigerator on a vehicle is maintained . 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim s 11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20200317057) in view of Lee (US 20230013714) in further view of Son (US 20200130525) . Regarding Claim 11, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 9, (see rejection above) wherein the motor system is configured to generate, based on regenerative braking, energy, the battery is configured to store the energy, (Salter, see at least [0024] wherein the electric machine may supply mechanical output to the driveline by using electrical energy stored in an electrical battery. This may be employed to achieve efficiency gains through regenerative braking, increased engine efficiency, etc.) Salter does not explicitly disclose and the controller is configured to control, based on the SOC value of the battery being higher than the reference high SOC value, the energy to bypass the battery and provide the energy to the first electric power load. However, Son discloses and the controller is configured to control, based on the SOC value of the battery being higher than the reference high SOC value, the energy to bypass the battery and provide the energy to the first electric power load. (Son, see at least [0011] the operating of the solar charging panel may include operating the solar charging panel to supply the generated power to the auxiliary battery when the SOC of the high-voltage battery is equal to or greater than a predetermined first reference SOC and the SOC of the auxiliary battery is equal to or greater than a predetermined second reference SOC.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Son to include the capability proving energy to the first electric power load based on regenerative braking, as this would allow when the battery is already at or near full charge, to feed additional energy to the power load that is received from regenerative braking to avoid overvoltage or overcurrent conditions. This would further improve the managing of EVs as limiting regenerative braking is important for battery health, safety and system efficiency. Regarding Claim 21, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 1, (see rejection above) wherein the motor system is configured to generate, based on regenerative braking, energy, (Salter, see at least [0024] wherein the electric machine may supply mechanical output to the driveline by using electrical energy stored in an electrical battery. This may be employed to achieve efficiency gains through regenerative braking, increased engine efficiency, etc.) Salter does not explicitly disclose and wherein the controller is configured to provide, based on an SOC value of the battery being higher than a reference high SOC value, the energy to the first electric power load. However, Son discloses and wherein the controller is configured to provide, based on an SOC value of the battery being higher than a reference high SOC value, the energy to the first electric power load. (Son, see at least [0011] the operating of the solar charging panel may include operating the solar charging panel to supply the generated power to the auxiliary battery when the SOC of the high-voltage battery is equal to or greater than a predetermined first reference SOC and the SOC of the auxiliary battery is equal to or greater than a predetermined second reference SOC.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Son to include the capability proving energy to the first electric power load based on regenerative braking, as this would allow when the battery is already at or near full charge, to feed additional energy to the power load that is received from regenerative braking to avoid overvoltage or overcurrent conditions. This would further improve the managing of EVs as limiting regenerative braking is important for battery health, safety and system efficiency. Regarding Claim 22, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 21, (see rejection above) Salter further discloses wherein the battery is configured to store the energy generated based on regenerative braking. (Salter, see at least [0024] wherein the electric machine may supply mechanical output to the driveline by using electrical energy stored in an electrical battery. This may be employed to achieve efficiency gains through regenerative braking, increased engine efficiency, etc.) 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20200317057) in view of Lee (US 20230013714) in further view of Fujishiro (US 20150224981) . Regarding Claim 23, Salter in view of Lee discloses The power system of claim 1, (see rejection above) Salter does not explicitly disclose wherein the first electric power load is configured to receive, based on the SOC value of the battery being higher than a reference high SOC value and from the motor system, energy generated based on regenerative braking. However, Fujishiro discloses wherein the first electric power load is configured to receive, based on the SOC value of the battery being higher than a reference high SOC value and from the motor system, energy generated based on regenerative braking. (Fujishiro, see at least [0018-0019] “wherein the utilization mode determination portion determines that the utilization mode of the regenerated energy to be the third mode in a case, when the charged ratio of the battery is equal to or larger than a first threshold..”) Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Salter with the teachings of Fujishiro to include the capability utilizing energy of regenerated energy when the battery s equal to or larger than a first threshold, as this would allow when the battery is already at or near full charge, to feed additional energy back from regenerative braking to avoid overvoltage or overcurrent conditions. This would further improve the managing of EVs as limiting regenerative braking is important for battery health, safety and system efficiency. Relevant Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230373343 – A vehicle includes a driving motor, an electric load, a first battery electrically connected to the driving motor and configured to supply a power of a first voltage to the driving motor, and a second battery electrically connected to the electric load and configured to supply a power of a second voltage to the electric load. US 20210146785 – A hybrid vehicle includes a generator, a driving motor, and a battery. The control system includes the hybrid vehicle, and a controller for controlling the generator and the driving motor. The controller calculates a battery output request value and a power-generating output request value based on traveling conditions of the vehicle, and controls the driving motor and the power generator based on these values. When a state of the battery is a state in which the power-generating output request value is not satisfied, the controller executes an adjustment process for adjusting the battery output request value and the power-generating output request value . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM. 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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. /NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664 /REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 14 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 15 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 16 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 17 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 18 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 19 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 20 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 21 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 22 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/799,134 Page 23 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights