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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a “pantograph” and a “conductive shoe” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the first electric energy". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 appears to be an “or” statement claim but the examiner is not sure. This claim is being interpreted as either one phrase or another is possible in the claim. The phrases on either side of the “or” in line 3 are being interpreted as two different embodiments for this claim.
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 (as best understood) 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 (as best understood) 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
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