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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant filed claims 1-11 of US application 18/881,839 on 1/7/25.
The same day, applicant filed a preliminary amendments. Claims 1-11 were cancelled. claims 12-30 were newly added. Claims 12-30 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 18 and 27, “the cooling system” should be “[[the]] a cooling system”
In claims 18 and 27, “the connection system” should be “[[the]] a connection system”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“evaluation unit” configured to perform various computations and make various decisions in claims 21 and 28
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the substitute specification reveals that the “evaluation unit” takes the form of an electronic control unit in at least paragraph [0026] in the specification. This is adequate structure to perform the claimed functions, so no further action is required by applicant with respect to the above 112(f) interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of determining breakdown of a vehicle, determining failure of energy conversion, determining a state of charge of a storage device, determining seriousness of a situation, and deciding whether a response to these circumstances should be proposed. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Where appropriate, claims with similar limitations are grouped together for legibility. However, it will be appreciated that all claims in any such group are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 12 and 21, applicant recites A driver assistance system comprising:
a data input; and
an evaluation unit;
wherein the evaluation unit is configured, based on the data input, to:
automatically determine a breakdown of the vehicle,
automatically determine that an energy conversion from a high-voltage onboard network into a low-voltage onboard network does not take place,
automatically determine a state of charge of an energy storage device of the low- voltage onboard network,
automatically determine a criticality of a vehicle situation, and
automatically decide, based on the state of charge and the criticality, whether measures are to be taken or proposed for protection of the vehicle and/or occupants of the vehicle and, in a case in which the measures are to be taken or proposed, decide which of the measures to take or propose.
Claim 12 recites a series of steps and therefore is directed to a process. Claim 21 recites a system which performs those steps, and therefore is directed to an apparatus. Therefore both of these claims satisfy step 1 of the Section 101 analysis. Under the two-prong inquiry, the claim is eligible at revised step 2A unless: Prong One: the claim recites a judicial exception; and Prong Two: the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception.
The above claim steps are directed to the concept of determining breakdown of a vehicle, determining failure of energy conversion, determining a state of charge of a storage device, determining seriousness of a situation, and deciding whether a response to these circumstances should be proposed, which is an abstract idea that can be performed by a user mentally or manually and falls within the Mental Processes grouping. (Prong one: YES, recites an abstract idea).
Claim 12 recites no additional elements at all. For claim 21, other than reciting the use of a data input and an evaluation unit, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed entirely by a human. The use of one or more computing devices is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Prong Two: NO, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application similar to that shown in MPEP 2106.05).
Under step 2B, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The data input and evaluation unit are described in at least paragraph [0026] of applicant’s specification as merely a general purpose computer. Therefore these additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The recitation of generic processors/computers does not take the above limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Moreover, the implementation of the abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claims merely invoke the additional elements as tools that are being used in their ordinary capacity. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significantly more. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Examiner’s suggestion to help applicant overcome the 101 rejections: applicant can overcome the 101 rejections by amending the independent claims to include the following limitation:
“wherein at least one of the following measures are automatically taken:
switching off a first group of electrical consumers,
switching off the first group and a further group of the electrical consumers, or
switching off a predefined area of exterior lights of the vehicle.”
This is significant because all of these measures amount to more than just outputting the judicial exception (unlike claims 20 and 29). This is also significant because whichever of these measures is taken is taken automatically, rather than by a manual act of a user (unlike claims 20 and 29). This would be enough to overcome the 101 rejections.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, applicant recites The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the high- voltage onboard network has a voltage of at least 400 V and the low-voltage onboard network has a voltage of 12 V to 48 V.
However, merely specifying the voltage of batteries does not change that everything in the parent claims can be performed mentally or manually by a human.
Regarding claims 14 and 23, applicant recites The driver assistance system according to claim 22, wherein the high- voltage onboard network has a voltage of at least 800 V.
However, merely specifying the voltage of batteries does not change that everything in the parent claims can be performed mentally or manually by a human.
Regarding claims 15 and 24, applicant recites The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the vehicle can no longer, or can no longer safely, participate in road traffic due to the breakdown, but an airbag or an automatic speech connection has not yet been triggered and a traction machine is no longer operable.
However, a human can mentally or manually detect these above malfunctions.
Regarding claims 16 and 25, applicant recites The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the low- voltage onboard network is powered by means of the energy storage device, which has a capacity of 10 Ah to 50 Ah.
However, merely specifying the characteristics of batteries does not change that everything in the parent claims can be performed mentally or manually by a human.
Regarding claims 17 and 26, applicant recites The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the criticality of the vehicle situation is determined by a sensor for satellite-based location in conjunction with a digital roadmap.
However, this GPS sensor is just a generic computer component like the other generic computer components discussed in the rejection of the independent claims. Moreover, a human can mentally or manually store or view a roadmap and determine the seriousness of a vehicle’s situation based on that information.
Regarding claim 18 and 27, applicant recites The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the breakdown is characterized by one or more of the following:
a fault in a travel-relevant or drive-relevant system of the vehicle,
a tire defect,
a failure of a fuel supply or a traction energy supply,
a fault in the cooling system,
a fault in the connection system, including a short circuit or a line interruption, and
a software fault.
However, merely specifying the kind of issue that occurs does not change that a human can determine, diagnose, or view data pertaining to or indicative of the issue.
Regarding claim 19 and 28, applicant recites The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to determine a reduction of the state of charge and/or an increase of the criticality and, in response thereto, decide that the measures are to be taken for protection of the vehicle and/or the occupants.
However, a human can mentally or manually make the above judgment call.
Regarding claims 20 and 29, applicant recites The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the measures comprise one or more of the following:
outputting a message to a user of the vehicle,
switching off a first group of electrical consumers,
switching off the first group and a further group of the electrical consumers,
initiating or offering of placement of an emergency call, and
switching off a predefined area of exterior lights of the vehicle.
However, the measures pertaining to outputting information are just outputting the judicial exception, which is insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. And the measures pertaining to switching off components are never stated to be automatic, so they could be performed manually by a human (i.e., a mechanic, etc.). Therefore, none of the above measures integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 30, applicant recites A vehicle comprising a driver assistance system according to claim 21.
However, merely stating that the environment of the data gathering and processing of claim 21 is a vehicle does not change that a user could perform all of the functions recited in claim 21 mentally or manually.
Examiner’s suggestion to help applicant overcome the 101 rejections: applicant can overcome the 101 rejections by amending the independent claims to include the following limitation:
“wherein at least one of the following measures are automatically taken:
switching off a first group of electrical consumers,
switching off the first group and a further group of the electrical consumers, or
switching off a predefined area of exterior lights of the vehicle.”
This is significant because all of these measures amount to more than just outputting the judicial exception (unlike claims 20 and 29). This is also significant because whichever of these measures is taken is taken automatically, rather than by a manual act of a user (unlike claims 20 and 29). This would be enough to overcome the 101 rejections.
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.
Claims 12, 18-19, 21, 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20120303192 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim. Where appropriate, claims with similar limitations are grouped together for legibility and the references are mapped to the narrowest claim in the group. But it will be appreciated that all claims in any such group are rejected.
Regarding claims 12 and 21, Kim discloses A driver assistance system (See at least Fig. 1 in Kim: Kim discloses a system for controlling the travel of a hybrid electric vehicle in an emergency [See at least Kim, 0014]) comprising:
a data input (See at least Fig. 1 in Kim: Kim discloses that When problems occur, the low voltage DC-DC converter 100 transmits a fault signal to the vehicle controller 300 [See at least Kim, 0020]); and
an evaluation unit (See at least Fig. 1 in Kim: Kim discloses that When problems occur, the low voltage DC-DC converter 100 transmits a fault signal to the vehicle controller 300 [See at least Kim, 0020]. Controller 300 may be regarded as an evaluation unit);
wherein the evaluation unit is configured, based on the data input, to:
automatically determine a breakdown of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 1 in Kim: Kim discloses that when an abnormality occurs in the low voltage DC-DC converter 100 and the voltage of the low voltage battery 420 deviates from the operational voltage range of the braking device 200, the vehicle controller 300 determines that power is not being smoothly supplied from the low voltage battery 420 to the braking device 200 [See at least Kim, 0022]),
automatically determine that an energy conversion from a high-voltage onboard network into a low-voltage onboard network (See at least Fig. 1 in Kim: Kim discloses that the low voltage DC-DC converter 100 converts high voltage output from the high voltage battery 410 into low voltage output [See at least Kim, 0019]. It will be appreciated that this happens when the converter functions normally) does not take place (See at least Fig. 1 in Kim: Kim discloses that when a fault signal generated due to trouble is received from the low voltage DC-DC converter 100 or a response signal is not received from the low voltage DC-DC converter 100, the vehicle controller 300 determines that an abnormality has occurred in the low voltage DC-DC converter 100 [See at least Kim, 0022]. It will be appreciated that a correct conversion is not taking place when the fault signal is received),
automatically determine a state of charge of an energy storage device of the low- voltage onboard network (See at least Fig. 3 in Kim: Kim discloses that When it is determined that an abnormality has occurred in the low voltage DC-DC converter 100, it is determined whether the voltage of the low voltage battery 420 deviates from the operational voltage range of the braking device 200 [See at least Kim, 0028]),
automatically determine a criticality of a vehicle situation (Kim discloses that a voltage range in which the braking device 200 can be operated is estimated to 12V or higher [See at least Kim, 0028]. Kim further discloses that When the operational voltage range of the braking device 200 is less than 12V of the low voltage battery 420, it is determined that the voltage of the low voltage battery 420 has deviated from the operational voltage range of the braking device 200 [See at least Kim, 0028]), and
automatically decide, based on the state of charge and the criticality, whether measures are to be taken or proposed (See at least Fig. 3 in Kim: Kim discloses that When the voltage of the low voltage battery 420 deviates from the operational voltage range of the braking device 200, the restricted vehicle speed is set to account for mechanical braking power, and the maximum torque is set to restrict the torque of the driving motor based on the set restricted vehicle speed [See at least Kim, 0029]) for protection of the vehicle and/or occupants of the vehicle (Kim discloses that the present invention is efficiently and effectively able to guarantee the safety of a driver when a brake is applied in a vehicle and securing a safe braking distance with a small amount of power [See at least Kim, 0030]) and, in a case in which the measures are to be taken or proposed, decide which of the measures to take or propose (See at least Fig. 3 in Kim: Kim discloses that When the voltage of the low voltage battery 420 deviates from the operational voltage range of the braking device 200, the restricted vehicle speed is set to account for mechanical braking power, and the maximum torque is set to restrict the torque of the driving motor based on the set restricted vehicle speed [See at least Kim, 0029]).
Regarding claims 18 and 27, Kim discloses The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the breakdown is characterized by one or more of the following:
a fault in a travel-relevant or drive-relevant system of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 1 in Kim: Kim discloses that when an abnormality occurs in the low voltage DC-DC converter 100 and the voltage of the low voltage battery 420 deviates from the operational voltage range of the braking device 200, the vehicle controller 300 determines that power is not being smoothly supplied from the low voltage battery 420 to the braking device 200 [See at least Kim, 0022]. Clearly, a power supply for the braking device is relevant to travel or driving of the vehicle),
a tire defect,
a failure of a fuel supply or a traction energy supply,
a fault in the cooling system,
a fault in the connection system, including a short circuit or a line interruption, and
a software fault.
Regarding claims 19 and 28, Kim discloses The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to determine a reduction of the state of charge and/or an increase of the criticality (Kim discloses that a voltage range in which the braking device 200 can be operated is estimated to 12V or higher [See at least Kim, 0028]. Kim further discloses that When the operational voltage range of the braking device 200 is less than 12V of the low voltage battery 420, it is determined that the voltage of the low voltage battery 420 has deviated from the operational voltage range of the braking device 200 [See at least Kim, 0028]) and, in response thereto, decide that the measures are to be taken (See at least Fig. 3 in Kim: Kim discloses that When the voltage of the low voltage battery 420 deviates from the operational voltage range of the braking device 200, the restricted vehicle speed is set to account for mechanical braking power, and the maximum torque is set to restrict the torque of the driving motor based on the set restricted vehicle speed [See at least Kim, 0029]) for protection of the vehicle and/or the occupants (Kim discloses that the present invention is efficiently and effectively able to guarantee the safety of a driver when a brake is applied in a vehicle and securing a safe braking distance with a small amount of power [See at least Kim, 0030]).
Regarding claim 30, Kim discloses A vehicle comprising a driver assistance system (See at least Fig. 1 in Kim: Kim discloses a system for controlling the travel of a hybrid electric vehicle in an emergency [See at least Kim, 0014]) according to claim 21 (See at least the 102 rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 13-14 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120303192 A1) in view of Gohs et al. (US 20240364181 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim and Gohs, respectively.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, Kim discloses The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the low-voltage onboard network has a voltage of 12 V to 48 V (Kim discloses the low voltage obtained through the conversion in order to drive components such as electric/electronic components which use the low voltage of a subsidiary battery, for example, 12V [See at least Kim, 0019]).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach the system wherein the high- voltage onboard network has a voltage of at least 400 V.
However, Gohs does teach a vehicle system wherein the high- voltage onboard network has a voltage of at least 400 V (Gohs teaches that The energy supply device in an embodiment includes a high-voltage storage battery (for example 400 V or 800 V) and an inverter or converter that transforms the direct current provided by the storage battery into alternating current [See at least Gohs, 0023]). Both Gohs and Kim teach methods for operating a vehicle with a high-voltage power system. However, only Gohs explicitly teaches where the high voltage power system may have a voltage of 800V.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high voltage battery of Kim to have a voltage of 800V, as in Gohs. Doing so is a design choice, which a designer of a system could obviously set.
Regarding claims 14 and 23, Kim in view of Gohs teaches The driver assistance system according to claim 22, wherein the high- voltage onboard network has a voltage of at least 800 V (Gohs teaches that The energy supply device in an embodiment includes a high-voltage storage battery (for example 400 V or 800 V) and an inverter or converter that transforms the direct current provided by the storage battery into alternating current [See at least Gohs, 0023]).
Claims 16 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120303192 A1) in view of Saucke et al. (US 20170166079 A1), hereinafter referred to as Saucke.
Regarding claims 16 and 25, Kim discloses The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the low- voltage onboard network is powered by means of the energy storage device (Kim discloses that The braking device 200 receives power from the low voltage battery 420 and applies a braking signal to a driving motor (not shown) in order to implement regenerative braking [See at least Kim, 0020]).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach the system wherein the energy storage device powering the low-voltage onboard network has a capacity of 10 Ah to 50 Ah.
However, Saucke does teach a system wherein the energy storage device powering the low-voltage onboard network has a capacity of 10 Ah to 50 Ah (Saucke teaches that the low-voltage battery 3 has a nominal capacity of 60 Ah and currently has an actual capacity of 50 Ah [See at least Saucke, 0018]). Both Saucke and Kim teach vehicle systems equipped with low-voltage batteries. However, only Kim explicitly teaches where the actual capacity of the battery may be 50 Ah.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Kim to also have an actual capacity of 50 Ah, as in Saucke. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that it is a design choice, which an engineer can obviously set.
Claims 17, 20, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120303192 A1) in view of Yellambalase (US 20180201187 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yellambalase.
Regarding claims 17 and 26, Kim discloses The driver assistance system according to claim 21.
However, Kim does not explicitly teach the system wherein the criticality of the vehicle situation is determined by a sensor for satellite-based location in conjunction with a digital roadmap.
However, Yellambalase does teach a system for responding to a power system fault (See at least Fig. 14 in Yellambalase: Yellambalase teaches that the method 1400 may optionally determine a severity of the power system fault (step 1412) [See at least Yellambalase, 0159]. Yellambalase further teaches that, For instance, the fault condition, or fault observed, at the power system may be graded, rated, classified, or otherwise categorized based on the value associated with the fault condition [See at least Yellambalase, 0159]) wherein the criticality of the vehicle situation is determined by a sensor for satellite-based location in conjunction with a digital roadmap (See at least Fig. 14 in Yellambalase: Yellambalase teaches that the method 1400 may proceed by determining whether the vehicle 100 is in a safe location to suffer through the power system fault, safely contain the fault, or otherwise destruct (step 1424) [See at least Yellambalase, 0165]. Yellambalase further teaches that In the event that the vehicle 100 is not determined to be in a safe location, the method 1400 may proceed by identifying a safe location to which the vehicle 100 may travel (step 1428) [See at least Yellambalase, 0166]. Yellambalase further teaches that Identification of a safe location may include referring to a memory associated with the vehicle 100 [See at least Yellambalase, 0166]. Yellambalase further teaches that The memory may include one or more geographical locations (e.g., identified by GPS coordinates, etc.) or zones (e.g., identified by map position, waypoints, etc.) stored therein that are identified as “safe” for vehicle destruction [See at least Yellambalase, 0166]. The situation where the faulty vehicle is not yet in the “safe” location for destruction may be regarded as more critical than the situation where the faulty vehicle is already in the “safe” location for destruction). Both Yellambalase and Kim teach methods for troubleshooting vehicle power system faults. However, only Yellambalase explicitly teaches where GPS and map data may be used to determine if the vehicle is at an unsafe location given that it has a fault so that the vehicle may move itself to a safer location in light of the fault.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle power system fault troubleshooting method of Kim so that GPS and map data may be used to determine if the vehicle is at an unsafe location given that it has a fault so that the vehicle may move itself to a safer location in light of the fault, as in Yellambalase. Doing so improves safety.
Regarding claims 20 and 29, Kim discloses The driver assistance system according to claim 21.
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose the system wherein the measures comprise one or more of the following:
outputting a message to a user of the vehicle,
switching off a first group of electrical consumers,
switching off the first group and a further group of the electrical consumers,
initiating or offering of placement of an emergency call, and
switching off a predefined area of exterior lights of the vehicle.
However, Yellambalase does teach a system which handles a power system fault wherein the measures comprise one or more of the following:
outputting a message to a user of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 14 in Yellambalase: Yellambalase teaches that the vehicle 100 may provide a vehicle destruction warning indicating that the vehicle 100 is suffering a power system fault (steps 1438 and 1444) [See at least Yellambalase, 0172]. Yellambalase further teaches that the vehicle destruction warning may include information about the power system fault [See at least Yellambalase, 0172]. Yellambalase further teaches that, For instance, the information may describe the type of power system fault (e.g., thermal event, electrical event, chemical event, etc.), the severity of the power system fault, a location of the power system fault, a time until destruction, and/or the like [See at least Yellambalase, 0172]. Yellambalase further teaches that, In any event, the warnings may be provided to at least one area inside and/or outside of the interior space 150 of the vehicle 100 [See at least Yellambalase, 0172]. Yellambalase further teaches that The destruction message may be sent across a wireless communication network to a receiving device of at least one receiving party (e.g., emergency entity, owner, occupant, mechanic, etc.) [See at least Yellambalase, 0173]),
switching off a first group of electrical consumers,
switching off the first group and a further group of the electrical consumers,
initiating or offering of placement of an emergency call, and
switching off a predefined area of exterior lights of the vehicle.
Both Yellambalase and Kim teach methods for handling power system faults. However, only Yellambalase teaches where the handling may include providing information to a user of the vehicle indicating various messages about the fault.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power system fault handling method of Kim to also include providing information to a user of the vehicle indicating various messages about the fault, as in Yellambalase. Doing so improves safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 24 are 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 if all the rejections and objections from previous sections of this office action are resolved.
The closest prior art of record is Kim (US 20120303192 A1) in view of Ishii (US 20230266399 A1) in further view of Chu (US 11639146 B2) in further view of Shimizu (US 20220021071 A1) in further view of Takahashi et al. (US 20210311124 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim, Ishii, Chu, Shimizu, and Takahashi, respectively. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 15 and 24, Kim discloses The driver assistance system according to claim 21, wherein the vehicle can no longer, or can no longer safely, participate in road traffic due to the breakdown, but an airbag or an automatic speech connection has not yet been triggered and a traction machine is no longer operable.
In order for a reference to read on this limitation, the vehicle in the reference needs to be so damaged that it can no longer drive, and yet the airbags or an automatic speech connection must be mentioned in the reference but explicitly not yet be deployed, at the same time that the traction machine (i.e., an electric motor) is no longer operable. But there is no reference that has this particular temporal sequence where the voice and/or airbag features exist in conjunction with these circumstances but yet are not deployed; the nexus between the claimed type of fault and the airbags or voice assistance not being deployed does not exist in the prior art.
Ishii comes somewhat close to teaching the above missing limitations, since Ishii teaches that upon receiving a rapid deterioration detection signal of the traction battery module 41, vehicle controller 30 may notify the driver of the abnormality of battery module 41 by voice synthesis output (See at least [Ishii, 0062]). But this cannot read on the claimed invention because rather than being a scenario where the voice message has not yet been activated, this is a scenario where the voice message is activated. Furthermore, while the battery in Ishii is deteriorating, it is not clear in Ishii that the vehicle can no longer safely engage in traffic—it might still very well be able to do so (See at least [Ishii, 0062]). So Ishii is not specific enough to read on the claimed invention.
Chu also comes somewhat close to reading on the claimed invention, since Chu teaches that, after a crash, a system receives power from the second battery to operate airbags when the first battery is damaged (See at least Chu, claim 1). However, this does not read on the above missing limitations either because the airbag is deployed rather than “not yet” deployed, and there is no indication of a wait or any suggestion that this deployment is not immediate. But more importantly, neither battery of Chu is a traction battery (i.e., a battery that drives a drive motor of the vehicle), so chu cannot possibly read on the aspects of the above missing limitation that require that the “traction machine” be inoperable because there is no traction battery, and therefore no traction machine, in Chu.
Shimizu also comes somewhat close to reading on the above missing limitations, since Shimizu teaches that a driver is warned of an unsafe condition of the battery via voice (See at least [Shimizu, 0032]). But, once again, this is performing the voice notification, rather than “not yet” performing the voice notification, so it still does not read on the claimed invention. But, furthermore, the traction battery of Shimizu—while existent, unlike Chu—is never inoperable. Instead, the traction battery of Shimizu is merely cooled down (See at least Fig. 4 in Shimizu and [Shimizu, 0041-0045]). In contrast, the traction machine of the claimed invention must be inoperable during the circumstances described in the claimed invention. So Shimizu does not read on the claimed invention either.
Takahashi also comes close to teaching the above missing limitations, since Takahashi teaches a system that notifies the occupant of the vehicle that there is abnormality in the second battery 30 through a voice (See at least [Takahashi, 0093]). However, the second battery is not the traction battery; at best, the second battery is just a battery that provides some additional voltage to the actual traction battery (See at least [Takahashi, 0040]). The actual traction battery of Takahashi, however, has no voice-based notification system associated with it, let alone one that is not activated even in a scenario where the traction battery or traction machine are inoperable. This inoperability scenario, needless to say, is also never even contemplated in Takahashi. Therefore, Takahashi does not read on the above missing limitations either.
None of the other prior art of record resolve these deficiencies in the above stated references.
For at least the above stated reasons, claims 15 and 24 contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668