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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 13-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vassilev et al. (“Magnetic Field Exposure Assessment in Electric Vehicles.” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 35-43, Feb. 2015, Date of Publication: 02 October 2014. doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2014.2359687; hereafter Vassilev) in view of Watanabe et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0024323 A1; hereafter Watanabe).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Vassilev discloses a method of calculating the current consumption of components in a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving from at least one magnetic flux sensor located at a known location in the vehicle, at least one magnetic flux pattern at various frequencies, indicative of the magnetic field at the location (see Vassilev Fig. 1 and section II. A. item 3); identifying at least one first magnetic flux maximum at a first frequency corresponding to a first component of the vehicle (see Vassilev Fig. 7, which discloses identifying components by their magnetic flux density spectrum); calculating a first current consumption of the first component based on the at least one first magnetic flux maximum (see Vassilev Fig. 4, which discloses the correlation between magnetic flux density and current); [claims 3 and 19] further comprising: generating a report comprising at least the first component, and the corresponding first frequency and the first current consumption (see Vassilev Figs. 4 and 7, which can be construed as a report of the flux, the component responsible for the flux, and the current associated with the flux); [claims 5 and 21] further comprising: identifying at least one second magnetic flux maximum at a second frequency corresponding to a second component of the vehicle (see Vassilev Fig. 7, which shows identifying at least two components from their flux signatures); and calculating a second current consumption of the second component based on the at least one second magnetic flux maximum (while Vassilev does not specifically disclose generating current information for each component, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that a similar current/flux graph could be generated for any particular component to correlate the measured flux to the current consumption of that component); [claim 16] wherein calculating the current consumption includes calculating the current consumption based on at least one of: the magnetic flux value at the at least one first maximum (see Vassilev Fig. 4), the width of the peak magnetic flux pattern associated with the at least one first maximum, the shape of the magnetic flux pattern associated with the at least one first minimum and the number of first magnetic flux maxima.
Vassilev does not specifically disclose changing at least one operational parameter of the vehicle based on the calculation; [claim 4] further comprising: designing at least one parameter of the vehicle based on the generated report; [claim 6] further comprising changing at least one operational parameter of the vehicle based on the calculation.
Watanabe discloses changing at least one operational parameter of the vehicle based on the calculation (see Watanabe Figs. 4 and 5, steps S130-S170, which disclose that when the power consumption of the vehicle is greater than the drive distance remaining, the system changes the operational parameters to extend the operating range of the vehicle); [claims 4 and 20] further comprising: designing at least one parameter of the vehicle based on the generated report (see Watanabe Fig. 4, which shows several designed operation schemes depending on the reported power saving requirements); [claim 6] further comprising changing at least one operational parameter of the vehicle based on the calculation (see Watanabe Fig. 4, which shows changing several parameters based on the calculation); [claim 10] wherein changing at least one operational parameter comprises, changing the electrical current provided to at least one of: the first component and the second component (see Watanabe Fig. 2, which discloses changing displays/operational capabilities of components, which requires changing the current to the device); [claim 13] wherein changing at least one operational parameter comprises, changing the operation duration of at least one of: the first component and the second component (see Watanabe Fig. 2, stopping capabilities can be construed as reducing operation duration to zero); [claim 14] wherein changing at least one operational parameter comprises, changing an operation sequence of at least one of: the first component and the second component (see Watanabe Fig. 2, at least lengthening the transmission cycle of the radar and reducing the operating speed of the microcomputer qualify as changing the operation sequence of the components).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the control scheme of the vehicle, like the system taught by Watanabe, in order to extend the operable range of the vehicle when the power or current draw is deemed excessive.
Regarding claim 7, Vassilev as modified discloses the method of claim 5, and further renders obvious generating a report comprising at least the second component, and the corresponding second frequency and second current consumption (similarly with respect to claim 5, above, while Vassilev does not specifically disclose generating multiple reports, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the method of generating one report could be repeated for generating reports for any other desired components.).
Regarding claim 8, Vassilev as modified discloses the method of claim 1, and further renders obvious wherein identifying comprises identifying a first plurality of magnetic flux maxima and wherein calculating is based on at least two maxima (while Vassilev does not specifically disclose calculating the total current based on a plurality of maxima, Vassilev discloses how the current draw can for any particular component can be determined from the magnetic flux measurement of that component. It would be trivial to the ordinary workman in the art to calculate the currents from multiple components and then sum them to determine the total current draw.).
Regarding claim 9, Vassilev as modified discloses the method of claim 8, wherein identifying further comprises identifying at least one harmony among the first plurality of magnetic flux maxima (see Vassilev Fig. 2, which shows the harmonic flux maxima of an isolated component).
Regarding claim 15, Vassilev as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose calculating the current consumption is based on comparing the magnetic flux maximum to magnetic flux maxima stored in a database corresponding to current consumption of the first component.
Vassilev discloses generating a graph for correlating the detected flux with the current through the component. It would have been well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art to store that data in a look-up-table in order to enable the device to determine the current from the flux reading without real-time calculation, which requires more computational power than a look-up-table.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vassilev in view of Watanabe as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Shiogai et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0180565 A1; hereafter Shiogai).
Regarding claim 11, Vassilev as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose changing at least one operational parameter comprises, changing a driving profile of the car, wherein the driving profile is selected from, default, economy, and sport driving; [claim 12] wherein changing at least one operational parameter comprises activating the selected driving profile in a dynamic manner.
Shiogai discloses changing at least one operational parameter comprises, changing a driving profile of the car, wherein the driving profile is selected from, default, economy, and sport driving (see Shiogai Fig. 5); [claim 12] wherein changing at least one operational parameter comprises activating the selected driving profile in a dynamic manner (any switching is dynamic, as opposed to not-switching, which is static. However, Shiogai also discloses dynamically changing the calculations based on the change in mode.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 8/27/2026
Prosecution Insights