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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument beginning at the top paragraph of page 9 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Subject Application”, Paras. 0005, 0052, 0066-0067 and most of applicant’s arguments discussed below) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the argument in the paragraph at the bottom of page 9. Regarding the argument that Kuribara does not disclose that “the second converter system (58) disposed between the off-board power source (fig. 4 at 90 & unnumbered plug, ¶0067 “connection of the charger 90 with the external power source”) and the first converter system (64, 65, 66)”. The examiner has shown item by item claim 1 mapping with prior art Kuribara. Below is shown a segment of Kuribara figure 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
218
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schematically, operationally and electrically the identified second converter (58) lies between an off-board power source (90) and a first converter system (66, 65 & 64). Following along and countering the applicants’ arguments starting from the last paragraph on page 9 line 6. Kuribara shows the charger 90 is directly connected to converter 58 through lines 54a. The hybrid electronic control unit (hereinafter referred to as “HVECU”) 70 controls everything in the schematic not just lines 54a. The main DC-DC converter 58 of Kuribara sits between the charger 90 (together with power lines 54a) and the second power lines 54b. In other words, between the main battery bus and the auxiliary machine battery
bus. Charger 90, therefore, connects directly to, among various things, the first power line bus and passes through and mediated by the main DC-DC converter 58 before reaching any other converter in the system 66, 65, 64 (see provided sectional above). Because the charger 90 connects directly through converter 58, converter 58 is plainly (see schematic above) "disposed between the off-board power source and the first converter system" as shown in mapped claim 1.
Moving to the argument in the middle paragraph on page 10. The Office Action's mapping of the "first converter system" to Kuribara's converters 64, 65 & 66. Only converter 64 is a solar converter. Converters 65 and 66 are “step-up DC-DC” and “step-up/down DC-DC” converters respectively. The Office Action maps that Kuribara's converters 64, 65, and 66 constitute the claimed "first converter system". Claim 1 recites that this first converter system receives “a determined amount of first electric energy” from the controlled onboard power source (e.g., the system through which the drive motors are powered by the onboard power source (auxiliary machine battery 56, auxiliary battery 61, and most particularly main battery 50)). In Kuribara, the components that receive energy from the main battery 50 (an "onboard power source") are varied as shown for example in figure 4. The converters 64, 65, and 66 (once again only 64 is “solar”), are part of Kuribara's schematic configuration shown in figure 4. Accordingly, and as shown clearly in at least figure 4 the second converter system is “disposed between the off board power source and the first converter system”. Most of the argument shown in the middle paragraph discusses Kuribara disclosure explanations of components and limitations not claimed.
Moving now to the arguments in the paragraph at the bottom of page 10 extending to the first paragraph on page 11. Here are the actual words from the claim that are argued by the applicant together with their mapping including added mapping “a second converter system (“DC-DC converter 58” & figures 1 & 4) to output an amount of second electric energy from the off-board power source (¶0067 & fig. 4; “converter 58” & “external power source”, “charger 90” with plug; “off-board power source plug” supplies power from the “charger 90” and the plug directly to second converter system, see drawing section below) within a designated threshold range (¶0051, ¶0052 “normal range”, “ When the main DC-DC normality flag is equal to the value 0, the HVECU 70 determines that the main DC-DC converter 58 is not normal (i.e., the main DC-DC converter 58 is abnormal)”),.
PNG
media_image2.png
108
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Basically, Kuribara shows the second converter system outputting energy/voltage directly from an off-board power source within a designated range. Supporting evidence; 0050 1st sentence discloses controlled (“HVECU 70”) output from “converter 58” is within normal and abnormal; 00052 last sentence “convert 58” output between normal and abnormal; 0053 1st two sentences, controlled by “HVECU 70” output from “converter 58” span between output “threshold values”; especially 0067 output from “charger 90” via “converter 58”.
Regarding the argument from the first paragraph on page 5 and the claimed phrase “designated threshold range”. Firstly, nearly all of this first paragraph on page 5 discusses information that is not claimed. The examiner has mapped this phrase with “(¶0050 to ¶0051 to 1st sentence of ¶0053; claim 6 “when the voltage of the second battery is not lower than the predetermined voltage and the charger is connected with the external power source”)”. The reference paragraphs (0050, 0051 & 0053), as stated in the previous paragraph, refer to output from the “converter 58” that is within a certain range; basically, between normal and abnormal.
Lastly, the middle paragraph on page 11 of the arguments describe how the instant application and the reference Kuribara are unrelated. The application and Kuribara both share; (a) an identical CPC classification B60L “Propulsion of Electrically-Propelled Vehicles, (b) both concern electrical vehicles, (c) both make major use of a DC-DC Converter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kuribara (US2018/0043788).
A method for connecting to an external source, comprising:
determining that a vehicle (20, 20B, 120, 220 & 320) configured to be propelled by a drive system (figures 1, 4, 5, 6 & 7) having one or more motors (MG) is configured to connect to an off-board power source (¶0067 “external power source”, ¶0073, claim 6) while the one or more motors are powered by an onboard power source (“main battery 50”);
controlling the onboard power source to provide a determined amount of first electric energy to a first converter system (converters 64, 65, 66); and
controlling a second converter system (“DC-DC converter 58” & fig. 1) to output an amount of second electric energy from the off-board power source (¶0067 “converter 58” & “external power source”) within a designated threshold range (¶0051, ¶0052 “normal range”, “ When the main DC-DC normality flag is equal to the value 0, the HVECU 70 determines that the main DC-DC converter 58 is not normal (i.e., the main DC-DC converter 58 is abnormal)”), the second converter system (58) disposed between the off-board power source (fig. 4 at 90 & unnumbered plug, ¶0067 “connection of the charger 90 with the external power source”) and the first converter system (64, 65, 66), wherein the drive system (e.g., 20B in fig. 4) is configured to receive power from the off-board power source (e.g., fig. 4 at 90 and unnumbered plug, “external power source” (¶0067)) responsive to the second converter system outputting the second amount of electric energy within the designated threshold range (¶0050 to ¶0051 to 1st sentence of ¶0053; claim 6 “when the voltage of the second battery is not lower than the predetermined voltage and the charger is connected with the external power source”).
Claim 2 Kuribara discloses the method of clause 1, wherein the designated threshold range is based at least in part on a voltage of the off-board power source (¶0073).
Claim 3 Kuribara discloses the method of clause 1, further comprising powering the drive system of the vehicle via the onboard power source (50) until the second converter system (58) outputs the second amount of the second electric energy that is within the designated threshold range (¶0050 to ¶0051 to 1st sentence of ¶0053; claim 6 “when the voltage of the second battery is not lower than the predetermined voltage and the charger is connected with the external power source”).
Claim 4 Kuribara discloses the method of clause 1, wherein the amount of the first electric energy provided by the onboard power source (50) is based at least in part on a voltage capability of the off-board power source (fig. 4 battery 50 has direct connection with charger 90).
Claim 5 Kuribara discloses the method of clause 1, further comprising (¶0067) automatically transitioning (fig. 4) from the onboard power source (50) providing power to control operation of the vehicle (20B fig. 4) to the off-board power source (“charger 90”) providing power to control operation of the vehicle (20B fig. 4) responsive to the second converter system (58) outputting the second amount of electric energy (¶0067 “The charger 90 that is connected with an external power source is controlled by the HVECU 70 such as to supply electric power from the external power source to the first power lines 54a (i.e., to the main battery 50).”) that is within the designated threshold range (HVECU uses threshold range as outlined in fig. 3).
Claim 7 Kuribara discloses the method of clause 1, wherein the onboard power source includes an engine (“engine 22” & “engine ECU 24”), and further comprising increasing an engine speed (¶0019 last sentence) of the engine to a designated speed (¶0033 describes engine speed effecting the “range of the input limit Winmb and the output limit Woutmb of the main battery 50”) to provide the determined amount of the first electric energy to the first converter system (64, 65, 66; see connections in figures 1 & 4 as “engine ECU 40” supplies energy to converters).
Claims 12 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kuribara (US2018/0043788).
A method, comprising:
determining that a vehicle (20, 20B, 120, 220 & 320) configured to be propelled by a drive system (figures 1, 4, 5, 6 & 7) having one or more motors (MG) is configured to disconnect from an off-board power source (¶0067 “external power source”, ¶0073, claim 6) while the one or more motors are being powered by the off-board power source (fig. 4 connections);
controlling an onboard power source (“main battery 50”) to provide a determined amount of first electric energy to a first converter system (converters 64, 65, 66); and
controlling a second converter system (“DC-DC converter 58” & fig. 1) to output an amount of second electric energy from the off-board power source (¶0067 “converter 58” & “external power source”) within a designated threshold range (¶0051, ¶0052 “normal range”, “ When the main DC-DC normality flag is equal to the value 0, the HVECU 70 determines that the main DC-DC converter 58 is not normal (i.e., the main DC-DC converter 58 is abnormal)”), the designated threshold range being less than the amount of the first electric energy of the onboard power source (¶0053 last 4 sentences), the drive system (e.g., 20B in fig. 4) configured to receive power from the onboard power source (fig. 4 see connections to “man battery 50”) responsive to the second converter system outputting the second amount of electric energy within the designated threshold range (¶0050 to ¶0051 to 1st sentence of ¶0053; claim 6 “when the voltage of the second battery is not lower than the predetermined voltage and the charger is connected with the external power source”).
Claim 16 Kuribara discloses the method of clause 12, wherein the onboard power source includes an engine (22), and further comprising increasing an engine speed of the engine to a designated speed (¶0033 “HVECU 70 sets a target rotation speed Ne* and a target torque Te* of the engine 22 and torque commands Tm1* and Tm2*”), reducing a torque output by the one or more motors (¶0033 MG1 & MG2), or both increasing the engine speed to the designated speed and reducing the torque output by the one or more motors.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuribara in view of Sobierajski et al (US2024/0092179).
Kuribara does not disclose controlling one or more of (i) an extended height of a pantograph relative to an adjacent catenary or (ii) a distance of a conductive shoe of the vehicle relative to an electrified conductive body, wherein one or more of the catenary or the electrified conductive body extend along a route being traveled by the vehicle.
Sobierajski discloses controlling one or more of (i) an extended height of a pantograph relative to an adjacent catenary (¶0019 3rd sentence; fig. 1) or (ii) a distance of a conductive shoe (¶0003) of the vehicle relative to an electrified conductive body (fig. 1), wherein one or more of the catenary or the electrified conductive body extend along a route being traveled by the vehicle (figures 1 or 2 at 106 or 206).
At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this art it would have been well known to upgrade the device of Kuribara with the collector and conductive pathway system of Sobierajski. A motivation for this improvement to Kuribara would be to increase its functionality with a different method to receive offboard power. This obviousness combination follows the KSR case law rationale A for obviousness; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Clam 10 Sobierajski discloses the method of clause 8, further comprising monitoring an electric current conducted from the one or more of the pantograph or the conductive shoe responsive to closing the one or more switches (¶0046 last two sentences also ¶0089 & 90).
Claims 17-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuribara in view of Sobierajski et al (US2024/0092179).
The applied reference Sobierajski et al has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). See the rejection below.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
A system, comprising:
a vehicle (“hybrid vehicle 20”) configured to be propelled by an electric drive system (¶0031) having one or more motors (MG), the vehicle configured to be powered by one of a first electric energy from an onboard power source (“main battery 50”) or a second electric energy from an off-board power source (fig. 4 at CHARGER 90 and unnumbered plug);
a collector device coupled to the vehicle, the vehicle configured to receive the second electric energy from the off-board power source via the collector device; and
a controller (70 & various ECU’s) having one or more processors (“CPU-based microprocessor”) to control the onboard power source (fig. 4 connections to 50) to provide a determined amount of the first electric energy to a first converter system (“converter 58” see connections in fig. 4) while the vehicle is being powered by the first electric energy of the onboard power source (fig. 4),
the controller configured to control (see fig. 4) a second converter system (64, 65, 66) to output an amount of the second electric energy from the off-board power source within a designated threshold range (¶0051), the second converter system disposed between (see lower left hand corner of fig. 4) the off-board power source and the first converter system (58), wherein the drive system is configured to receive power from the off-board power source (connections in fig. 4 especially “power lines 54a”) responsive to the second converter system (64, 65, 66) outputting the second amount of electric energy within the designated threshold range (¶0051).
Kuribara does not disclose a collector device coupled to the vehicle with the vehicle configured to receive the second electric energy from the off-board power source via the collector device.
Sobierajski discloses a vehicle (figures 1 & 2) with a collector device (fig. 2 at 204) coupled to a vehicle, the vehicle configured to receive a second electric energy from the off-board power source (202, 208) via the collector device. At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this art it would have been well known to upgrade the device of Kuribara with the collector and conductive pathway system of Sobierajski. A motivation for this improvement to Kuribara would be to increase its functionality with a different method to receive offboard power. This obviousness combination follows the KSR case law rationale A for obviousness; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 18 Kuribara discloses the collector system of clause 17, further comprising one or more switches disposed along conductive paths between one or more of a pantograph (¶0046 last three sentences) or a conductive shoe of the vehicle and the second converter system, Sobierajski discloses the controller configured to close one or more of the switches responsive to the onboard power source (¶0021 last sentence all ¶0022) providing the determined amount of the first electric energy to the first converter system (through ECU 40 see ¶0032 last sentence and ¶0033 last two sentences).
Claim 21 Sobierajski discloses the system of clause 17, wherein the controller is configured to control a position of the collector device relative to one or more of a catenary (¶0024, ¶0049) or an electrified conductive body, wherein one or more of the catenary or the electrified conductive body extends along a route being traveled by the vehicle (fig. 2 vehicle on 206).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 11, 13-15, 19-20 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights