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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s contention (see pages 7-8 filed 13 April 2026) with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn.
Subsequently, the prior art rejections of all claims dependent therefrom are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are warranted (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
3a. Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (US 2023/0303091), and further in view of Negoita (US 2024/0217388).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, You discloses a service server, associated method and storage medium (simulation-based optimization framework comprising a plurality of servers; You at Fig. 1, 0007, 0034) comprising:
One or more processors (processing devices in the service server contain a processor, e.g. processor 120; You at Fig. 1, 0059).
A memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (memory coupled to one or more processors to run the algorithm to prolong battery life and productivity; You at abstract, 0003), cause the one or more processors to operate an energy management program (processing platform contains energy management modeling; You at 0007, 0075, 0076), wherein the energy management program is configured to:
Receive, from a platform managing server configured to manage a simulation platform, vehicle data comprising driving data related to a driving of a vehicle and battery data related to a state of a battery of the vehicle (EV vehicle sensor data from onboard systems, including battery and driving data, transmitted to processing platform and disseminated; You at 0033, 0034, 0048, 0222), wherein the simulation platform is configured to provide a simulation related to a driving environment of a vehicle (EV simulator configured to simulate a driving environment of a vehicle based on received data; You at 0136-0143).
It cannot be ascertained from the disclosure of You generating energy management data based on a combination of the driving data and the battery data; You at least suggests this facet of the invention at 0090 wherein driving pattern and battery data used to predict battery performance and lifespan. You is silent as to providing to the platform management server, the energy management data.
Negoita, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the service server (server/cloud 216; Negoita at Fig. 2) analyzes battery and driving data from a platform management server (BMS multivariate time series data transmitted from a vehicle received by server/cloud and analyzed; Negoita at abstract, 0004, 0027-0029), generates energy management data and provides to the platform management server said energy management data (battery state of health and BMS strategy changes transmitted to vehicle; Negoita at 0062, 0063).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to enhance the server of You to provide the energy management data as taught by Negoita. Doing so would prolong battery life in EV.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18 You discloses wherein the energy management comprises at least one of diagnostic obtained by diagnosing the state of the battery of the vehicle, diagnostic data obtained by diagnosing the state of the battery (battery lifespan and diagnostic; You at 0075, 0076, 0219), lifespan data obtained by analyzing the lifespan of the battery (lifespan data; You at 0075, 0076), first and second control data for controlling driving operations of the vehicle or an electrical module of the vehicle (EV component control and EV control; You at abstract, 0083, 0216).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, You discloses wherein the energy management program is configured to analyze the lifespan of the battery using driving mode information, wherein the vehicle data comprises the driving mode information (operating mode used as a constraint in simulation; You at 0131).
3b. Claims 3, 5, 11, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You and Negoita, as combined above, and further in view of Simonis (US 2022/0097561).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19, while You discloses using any number of sensed vehicle parameters to predict the lifespan of the battery, the combination is silent as to acquiring regenerative braking information of the vehicle using the regenerative braking information, wherein the regenerative braking information is based on the vehicle data; and acquire the lifespan data by analyzing the lifespan of the battery using the regenerative braking information.
Simonis, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches a central server configured to obtain the vehicle regenerative data, and based on analysis of the regenerative data, calculate a battery lifespan (Simonis at 0055, 0057, 0076).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the combination with the analysis of Simonis. Doing so would provide a more accurate assessment of remaining battery life.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combination teaches wherein the energy management program is configured to analyze the lifespan of the battery such that the lifespan of the battery decreases as a count number of regenerative braking increases, wherein the regenerative braking information comprises the count number of regenerative braking (regenerative braking frequency; Simonis at 0055-0056).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 20 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.
Conclusion
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).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
23 June 2026
Prosecution Insights