DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102022113285.4, filed on 05/25/2022.
Examiner Notes
3. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejection outlined below.
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 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.
7. Applicant argues dependent claim(s) is/are patentable by the virtue of their dependency on independent claims 11 and the additional features recited in the dependent claims.
8. This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim and dependent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 11-15, and 17-18
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubo et al. (US-20180236883-A1) in view of Yoon (KR-20190068087-A).
In regard to claim 11
, Kokubo discloses a method for operating an electric vehicle, the method comprising (Kokubo, in at least Figs. 1-2, and [0041], discloses Fig. 2 is a flowchart [i.e., a method] illustrating an uphill road predicting process which is performed by the ECU 180. A step-up control process is repeatedly performed while the fuel-cell vehicle 100 [i.e., for operating an electric vehicle] is traveling):
determining a position of the electric vehicle, wherein the electric vehicle has at least one fuel cell system, at least one electric drive engine, and at least one traction battery having a battery capacity and coupled to supply power to the at least one electric drive engine (Kokubo, in at least Fig. 1, and [0018 & 0028], discloses the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is a vehicle that is driven by a drive motor 160 [i.e., at least one electric drive engine] using a fuel cell 110 and a secondary battery 130 as power sources [i.e., wherein the electric vehicle has at least one fuel cell system and at least one traction battery having a battery capacity and coupled to supply power to the at least one electric drive engine]. The position information detecting unit 172 detects position information of the fuel-cell vehicle 100 [i.e., determining a position of the electric vehicle]);
determining, from a digital map and based on the determined position of the electric vehicle, elevations in a specified perimeter around the electric vehicle (Kokubo, in at least Fig. 1, [0010 & 0036], discloses the controller is configured to charge the secondary battery such that a state of charge of the secondary battery is equal to or greater than a first lower limit and is equal to or less than a first upper limit when it is predicted that the fuel-cell vehicle is not to travel on an uphill road in a predetermined section based on position information and map information of the fuel-cell vehicle [i.e., in a specified perimeter around the electric vehicle]. The ECU 180 predicts whether the fuel-cell vehicle 100 will travel on an uphill road [i.e., determining elevations] based on the signal which indicates position information and map information [i.e., from a digital map and based on the determined position of the electric vehicle] and which is output from the navigation device 170 when the car navigation device is performing guidance for a route to a destination);
controlling, while the vehicle is traveling along a road within the specified parameter and based on the target state of charge, application of power from the at least one electric drive engine to wheels of the electric vehicle and application of power to and from the at least one electric drive engine (Kokubo, in at least Fig. 3, and [0040], discloses the ECU 180 controls a ratio of the electric power supplied from the secondary battery 130 to the electric power supplied from the fuel cell 110 in the electric power supplied from the fuel cell 110 and the secondary battery 130 to the drive motor 160 [i.e., controlling application of power from the at least one electric drive engine to wheels of the electric vehicle and application of power to and from the at least one electric drive engine]. In the fuel-cell vehicle 100, before the fuel-cell vehicle 100 travels on an uphill road [i.e., while the vehicle is traveling along a road], the secondary battery 130 is charged such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range closer to the upper limit (a range of 55% to 60%) [i.e., within the specified parameter and based on the target state of charge] in the range (a range of 45% to 60%) which can be set as the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 during normal traveling. That is, the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range which is higher than that during normal traveling).
Kokubo is silent on determining a probability of occurrence of uphill road sections and a probability of occurrence of downhill road sections based on the determined elevations; and
specifying, based on a comparison of the determined probability of the occurrence of the uphill road sections and the determined probability of the occurrence the downhill road sections, a target state of charge of the at least one traction battery;
However, Yoon teaches determining a probability of occurrence of uphill road sections and a probability of occurrence of downhill road sections based on the determined elevations (Yoon, in at least [0010-0011], teaches if the detected vehicle altitude is higher than the reference altitude [i.e., based on the determined elevations], the control unit determines that there is a high probability of driving downhill [i.e., determining a probability of occurrence of downhill road sections] in the future, and reduces the allowable charge amount of the battery and increase the allowable discharge amount so that the charge amount of the battery is actively used. If the detected vehicle altitude is lower than the reference altitude [i.e., based on the determined elevations], the control unit determines that there is a high probability of driving on an uphill [i.e., determining a probability of occurrence of uphill road sections] road in the future, and can increase the allowable charge amount of the battery and decrease the allowable discharge amount so that the charge amount of the battery is used passively); and
specifying, based on a comparison of the determined probability of the occurrence of the uphill road sections and the determined probability of the occurrence the downhill road sections, a target state of charge of the at least one traction battery (Yoon, in at least [0042-0048], teaches if the detected vehicle altitude is higher than the reference altitude, the control unit determines that there is a high probability of driving downhill [i.e., a comparison of the determined probability of the occurrence of the downhill road sections] in the future, and reduces the allowable charge amount of the battery [i.e., specifying a target state of charge of the at least one traction battery] and increase the allowable discharge amount so that the charge amount of the battery is actively used. If the detected vehicle altitude is lower than the reference altitude, the control unit determines that there is a high probability of driving on an uphill road [i.e., a comparison of the determined probability of the occurrence of the uphill road sections] in the future, and increases the allowable charge amount of the battery [i.e., specifying a target state of charge of the at least one traction battery] and decrease the allowable discharge amount so that the charge amount of the battery is used passively);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kokubo in view of Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems – and when there is a high probability of driving uphill or downhill, then the allowable charge amount of the battery is set based on the probability, and the combination would provide for improving battery efficiency by reflecting the altitude environmental conditions in which the vehicle is driven (Yoon, see at least [0008]).
In regard to claim 12
, Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein when it is determined there is a higher probability of uphill sections than downhill sections, the target state of charge is specified as being more than 50% of the battery capacity (Kokubo, in at least Figs. 1-3, and [0048], discloses when it is determined that the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is predicted to travel on an uphill road (YES in Step S100) [i.e., wherein when it is determined there is a higher probability of uphill sections than downhill sections], the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 60% to 70% (Step S125) [i.e., the target state of charge is specified as being more than 50% of the battery capacity]. Examiner notes, the range of range of 60% to 70% is more than 50% of the battery capacity).
In regard to claim 13
, Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, teaches the method of claim 12, accordingly the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated.
While Kokubo discloses the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 60% to 70% (Step S125) (Kokubo, see at least Figs. 1, 3, and [0048]), Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, is silent on wherein the target state of charge is specified as being more than 80% of the battery capacity.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a target state of charge more than 80% of the battery capacity, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that a target state of charge more than 80% of the battery capacity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other target states of charge.
In regard to claim 14
, Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein when it is determined there is a higher probability of downhill sections (Kokubo, in at least Figs. 1-2, and [0042], discloses when it is determined that the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is predicted not to travel on an uphill road (NO in Step S100) [implies a higher probability of downhill sections than uphill sections, i.e., zero probability of an uphill road], the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 45% to 60% (Step S110) [i.e., the target state of charge is specified as being less than 60% of the battery capacity]. Examiner notes, the range of 45% to 60% is less than 60% of the battery capacity).
While Kokubo discloses predicting that the fuel-cell vehicle is not to travel on an uphill road in a predetermined section based on position information and map information of the fuel-cell vehicle (Kokubo, see at least [0006]), Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, is silent on comparing probability of downhill sections to uphill sections. Examiner asserts that predicting that the fuel-cell vehicle is not to travel on an uphill road means the probability of the vehicle travelling downhill or on a flat surface is higher that probability of travelling uphill. That is, Kokubo teaches using uphill and downhill probability for determining the state-of-charge of the battery.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the probability of travelling downhill for specifying the state-of-charge of the battery, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that a higher probability of downhill sections than uphill sections solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other sets of probabilities.
In regard to claim 15
, Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, teaches the method of claim 14, accordingly the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated.
While Kokubo discloses the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 45% to 60% (Step S110) (Kokubo, see at least Figs. 1, 3, and [0042]), Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, is silent on wherein the target state of charge is specified as being less than 30% of the battery capacity.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a target state of charge less than 30% of the battery capacity, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that a target state of charge less than 30% of the battery capacity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other target states of charge.
In regard to claim 17
, Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, teaches the method of claim 11, accordingly the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
While Kokubo discloses the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 45% to 60%, when it is predicted that the fuel-cell vehicle 100 will not travel on an uphill road within a range of less than 10 km on a guided route from a current location of the fuel-cell vehicle 100 to a destination (Kokubo, see at least Fig. 1, and [0030]), Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, is silent on wherein the specified perimeter has a radius of 50 km around the electric vehicle.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a perimeter having a radius of 50 km, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that a specified perimeter with a radius of 50 km around solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other target states of charge.
In regard to claim 18
, Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the specified perimeter has an angle of 360° around the electric vehicle (Error! Reference source not found., in at least Fig. 1, and [0056], discloses an uphill road is predicted based on whether an uphill road is included in a circle having a radius of a preset distance from a center which is a position of the fuel-cell vehicle 100 on a map [i.e., wherein the specified perimeter has an angle of 360° around the electric vehicle ]).
11. Claim(s) 16
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubo et al. (US-20180236883-A1) in view of Yoon (KR-20190068087-A) and further in view of Hancock et al. (US-20170225742-A1).
In regard to claim 16
, Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, teaches the method of claim 11, accordingly the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, is silent on wherein it is determined there is a similar probability of uphill sections and downhill sections and the target state of charge is specified in a range of 50 to 60% of the battery capacity.
However, Hancock teaches wherein it is determined there is a similar probability of uphill sections and downhill sections (Hancock, in at least [0104], teaches if a route is expected to be generally flat [implies similar probability of uphill sections and downhill sections, i.e., the probability of uphill and downhill sections are both zero], a “hill climbing” mode is disabled, or if a route is purely uphill, a “battery charging” mode that utilizes power generated by the rider to charge a battery is disabled. Examiner asserts when a vehicle is to travel on a flat section of a road, the probabilities of the uphill and downhill sections are 0. That is, determining there is a similar probability of uphill sections and downhill sections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kokubo, as already modified by Yoon, in view of Hancock with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems – and determine the probability of downhill and uphill and determine whether these probabilities are similar, and the combination would provide for maintaining a higher cadence in order to maintain momentum or speed (Hancock, see at least [0007]).
While Kokubo discloses when it is determined that the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is predicted to travel on an uphill road (YES in Step S100), the ECU 180 determines whether the gradient of the uphill road is equal to or greater than a predetermined gradient (Step S200). When it is determined that the gradient of the uphill road is less than the predetermined gradient (NO in Step S200), the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 55% to 60% (Step S210) (Kokubo, see at least Fig. 4, and [0051-0052]), Kokubo, as modified by Yoon and Hancock, is silent on the target state of charge is specified in a range of 50 to 60% of the battery capacity.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to maintain the state of charge of the vehicle around 50% when the vehicle is moving on a flat road or a road with similar probability of uphill sections and downhill sections, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that a target state of charge 50 to 60% of the battery capacity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other target states of charge.
12. Claim(s) 19-20
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubo et al. (US-20180236883-A1) in view of Yoon (KR-20190068087-A) and further in view of Wagner (EP-2692604-A1).
In regard to claim 19
, Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein when there is a driving route planned via a navigation system to a known destination without a planned driving route or when driving routes frequently travelled in past when the electric vehicle is in the determined position, (Kokubo, in at least Fig. 1, and [0056], discloses when the car navigation device does not perform guidance for a route to a destination [i.e., wherein when there is a driving route planned via a navigation system to a known destination without a planned driving route], the ECU 180 predicts whether the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is to travel on an uphill road based on the signal which indicates position information and map information and which is output from the navigation device 170. An uphill road is predicted based on whether an uphill road is included in a circle having a radius of a preset distance from a center which is a position of the fuel-cell vehicle 100 on a map).
Kokubo, as modified by Yoon, is silent on an angle of the perimeter is restricted to an angle section along an expected direction of travel.
However, Wagner teaches an angle of the perimeter is restricted to an angle section along an expected direction of travel (Wagner, in at least Figs. 6-7, and [0043], teaches the hybrid electric vehicle is located at the position 405 in the direction of travel 406, but no route is specified. Based on map data assigned to the area surrounding the hybrid electric vehicle, taking into account position 405 and direction of travel 406 [i.e., an angle of the perimeter is restricted to an angle section along an expected direction of travel], it is determined that the hybrid electric vehicle is located on the first road 401 and is traveling in the direction of the cross road 402).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kokubo, as already modified by Yoon, in view of Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems – and the position and the direction of the vehicle is taken into account, which is restricting the angle of the perimeter to an angle section along an expected direction of travel, and the combination would provide for using a navigation device and other devices that are already found on board most hybrid vehicles, so that the installation of additional hardware is avoided (Wagner, see at least [0014]).
In regard to claim 20
, Kokubo, as modified by Yoon and Wagner, teaches the method of claim 19, accordingly the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated.
While Wagner teaches taking into account position 405 and direction of travel 406 (Wagner, see at least Figs. 6-7, and [0043]), Kokubo, as modified by Yoon and Wagner, is silent on wherein the angle is restricted in a range from 90 to 270°.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to restrict the angle to an angle around direction of the travel which covers the left and right turn of the vehicle, which is an angle from 90 to 270°, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that from 90 to 270° solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other target states of charge.
Conclusion
13. 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).
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
16. 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.
17. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
18. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights