DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 11-14, 16-18, 21-26 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure fails to provide support for the claimed limitation in claim 24 of “the controller is configured to permit entry into the over-the-air operating mode only when the battery state exceeds a predefined threshold”. The Examiner is unable to find support in the originally filed disclosure for the above limitation and is considered a new matter.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 18, 21-23, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makke et al. [US 10343629] in view of Luo et al. [US 20090171522].
As to claim 11. Makke discloses A vehicle, comprising:
a frame, [col. 2, lines 58-60] a vehicle;
a prime mover supported by the frame, [col. 3, lines 12-14] a vehicle with a motor;
a battery supported by the frame, [fig. 1, col. 3, lines 28-31] battery 104; and
a controller, [fig. 1, col. 4, lines 4-8] power saving module 112, configured to:
receive an indication of an operating mode, [fig. 2, col. 5, lines 36-38] step 202, wherein the operating mode is at least one of:
a shipping operating mode into which the vehicle is placed for shipment, [col. 4, lines 19-34] shipping mode;
an operator connectivity operating mode enabling connectivity between the vehicle and one or more operator devices, [col. 4, line 63 – col. 5, line 4] normal mode that sends vehicle status through telematics control unit TCU 106e and send the status to the owner mobile device;
an off-season storage operating mode, [col. 4, lines 19-34] storage mode;
a start guarantee operating mode in which the vehicle resources are conserved to enable a future start operation of the vehicle, [col. 9, lines 20-23] mode changed to a mode to allow the vehicle engine;
an over-the-air (OTA) operating mode in which an over-the-air update is applied at the vehicle, [col. 4, line 63 – col. 5, line 4] normal mode that sends vehicle status through telematics control unit TCU 106e, [col. 7, lines 24-37] wherein the TCU is a wireless communication unit;
a warehouse operating mode in which the vehicle is operable in a state of reduced functionality, [col. 4, lines 35-48]; and
configure the vehicle according to the indicated operating mode, [fig. 2, col. 10, lines 23-30] step 208.
Makke fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to evaluate a state of charge associated with the battery; and based on the state of charge of the battery, update the configuration of the vehicle from the indicated operating mode to an updated operating mode.
Luo teaches a hybrid vehicle with a mode controller wherein the vehicle has a plurality of operating modes that are selectable by a user, [fig. 43, 0022]; wherein the controller monitors the battery pack capacity, [0159, 0160]; wherein the controller automatically overrides the user selected mode into a different operating mode based on the battery level, [fig. 36, claim 8].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Makke with that of Luo so that the system can conserve power for critical operations as the battery level drops below a certain level.
As to claim 12. Makke discloses The vehicle of claim 11, wherein the indication is received via a connection of the controller to a key switch connector, [fig. 2, col. 5, lines 36-43], and the connection is associated with the indicated operating mode, [fig. 2, col. 5, lines 36-47].
As to claim 13. Makke discloses The vehicle of claim 11, wherein the indication is received via a connectivity circuit of the vehicle, [col. 9, lines 58-63] received through I/O devices 126, [col. 8, lines 50-58] which includes wireless communication input.
As to claim 14. Makke discloses The vehicle of claim 11, wherein the indication is received via a controller area network of the vehicle, [col. 9, lines 58-63] received from the key fob 114; [col. 7, lines 4-16] wherein key fob data is communicated through the vehicle bus.
As to claim 18. Makke discloses The vehicle of claim 11, wherein configuring the vehicle comprises: providing an indication to a vehicle control module of the vehicle to configure vehicle functionality according to the indicated operating mode, [col. 9, lines 58-60] the processor receives an indication of the selected mode.
As to claim 21. Makke discloses The vehicle of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to automatically transition the vehicle from a first operating mode to a second operating mode in response to detection of a predefined event, [col. 9, lines 58-60] the processor receives an indication of the selected mode.
As to claim 22. Makke discloses The vehicle of claim 11, wherein the indication of the operating mode is received from a remote computing system via a wireless communication interface, [col. 6, lines 6-9].
As to claim 23. Makke discloses The vehicle of claim 11, wherein configuring the vehicle according to the indicated operating mode comprises selectively enabling or disabling at least one vehicle subsystem, [col. 9, lines 9-15].
As to claim 24. Makke discloses The vehicle of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to permit entry into the over-the-air operating mode only when the battery state of charge exceeds a predefined threshold.
As to claim 25. Makke discloses The vehicle of claim 11, wherein in the shipping operating mode or the off-season storage operating mode, the controller disables at least one periodic communication function of the vehicle, wherein the periodic communication function comprises periodic location reporting or status reporting, [col. 4, lines 35-62] wherein the subset of vehicle modules 106 deactivated can be selected based on the length of storage, the type of vehicle, the storage environment and other factors; [col. 7, lines 24-31] wherein the module 106e includes a GPS.
As to claim 26 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 11.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makke in view of Luo as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Curtis et al. [US 20170088072].
As to claim 16. the combination of Makke and Lou fails to disclose The vehicle of claim 11, wherein the start guarantee operating mode is associated with a state of charge of the battery and comprises: a full connectivity operating mode; a limited connectivity operating mode; and a no connectivity operating mode.
Curtis teaches a system and method for power management of a module in a vehicle, [abs.]; wherein the system changes the operation mode of a communication module based on the power level of the battery [0086, 0093], described as energy availability state, [0082]; wherein the system operates the communication module in active state for full communication mode, sleep state for limited communication mode, and idle states for no communication mode, [0095].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Makke and Lou with that of Curtis so that the system can conserve power for critical operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-14, 16-18, 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: the limitation of claim 24 has support in the originally filed disclosure, specifically in [0135, 0184-0185, 0233-0239].
Response 1: The above cited portions of the originally filed disclosure do not provide support for the claimed limitation where entry into the OTA mode is allowed only when the battery is below a predetermined threshold. The above portions provide support for a general “connectivity unit” being disabled based on conservation rules. There is no specific support provided for enabling entry into the OTA mode only when the battery is above a predetermined threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights