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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 5, 11 and 19 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding these claims, the language “wherein the predetermined requirement comprises the vehicle operating in the run mode” renders the claims indefinite. That is, the claims define three possible power modes for a vehicle “off mode, an accessory enable mode wherein accessories are powered and the vehicle cannot be driven, and a run mode wherein accessories are powered and the vehicle can be driven”, thus the predetermined requirement “run mode” appears to be the same as a possible “power mode”. The scope of the claims are thus unclear as it is uncertain how the predetermined requirement and the condition can be the same, or otherwise. These claims are regarded as unexaminable because of their indefinite claim scope.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention.
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 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; or
(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, 3, 6, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Averill et al. (“Averill”)(US 2019/0023542 A1).
Averill teaches an apparatus for controlling a winch system of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising
(re: claim 1) at least one processor (fig. 2 and para. 19-22, 28, 59 teaching “winch control module 216 with a microcontroller 224 containing programmable data for operating the winch components and the plurality of accessories coupled to the winch control module”); and
memory having instructions stored thereon (Id.) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to:
determine that operation of a winch is requested (fig. 3 showing steps 302 and 304; para. 29 teaching powering on winch via user interface or manual switch as well receiving winch operation mode request from user, e.g., standard mode);
determine at least one condition of the vehicle associated with the winch in response to the determination that operation of the winch is requested (para. 24 teaching that operation of winch may be adjusted based on various vehicle conditions/ parameters, such as “any one or more of vehicle speed, vehicle incline, steering angle, engine temperature, brake pressure, engine load, charge state of the battery 228, and current and/or voltage output from the battery 228”);
enable power to the winch in response to the at least one condition of the vehicle satisfying a predetermined requirement (para. 21 teaching winch control module configured to provide control signal to winch motor controller that supplies power, i.e., current, from vehicle battery; para. 24 teaching adjusting winch speed limit, load limit and temperature limit” based on the vehicle conditions—thus it is inherent power is enabled to adjust winch speed or load limit once specific condition threshold/limit is reached, e.g., a specific battery charge state or vehicle speed);
(re: claim 3) wherein the at least one condition comprises one or more of a vehicle operating mode, a vehicle speed, a vehicle power mode, or a vehicle power status (para. 24 teaching vehicle speed or vehicle battery charge state);
(re: claim 6) wherein the at least one condition is determined based on one or more signals received from at least one sensor of the vehicle (Id. wherein vehicle speed or battery charge sensing element are inherent in determining a level of said parameters)
Averill further teaches a vehicle comprising:
(re: claim 9) a winch (fig. 1 showing winch 10; para. 10, 18 teaching that winch may be coupled to a front end of a vehicle, such as a truck or other type of commercial vehicle, wherein the winch motor assembly 12 may be powered by a battery of said vehicle);
a winch power supply (Id. teaching vehicle battery; see also fig. 2 showing winch power management module 220 connected to vehicle battery); and
a winch controller (fig. 2 teaching winch control module 216 configured to:
determine that operation of a winch is requested (fig. 3 showing steps 302 and 304; para. 29 teaching powering on winch via user interface or manual switch as well receiving winch operation mode request from user, e.g., standard mode);
determine at least one condition of the vehicle in response to the determination that operation of the winch is requested (para. 24 teaching that operation of winch may be adjusted based on various vehicle conditions/parameters, such as “any one or more of vehicle speed, vehicle incline, steering angle, engine temperature, brake pressure, engine load, charge state of the battery 228, and current and/or voltage output from the battery 228”); and
enable power to the winch from the winch power supply in response to the at least one condition of the vehicle satisfying a predetermined requirement (para. 21 teaching winch control module configured to provide control signal to winch motor controller that supplies power, i.e., current, from vehicle battery; para. 24 teaching adjusting winch speed limit, load limit and temperature limit” based on the vehicle conditions—thus it is inherent power is enabled to adjust winch speed or load limit once specific condition threshold/limit is reached, e.g., a specific battery charge state or vehicle speed).
(re: claim 17) The claimed method is performed in the normal operation of the device cited 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 of this title, 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 4, 6-8, 12, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averill et al. (“Averill”)(US 2019/0023542 A1) in view of Crain et al. (“Crain”)(US 2026/0008655 A1) and legal precedent.
Averill as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 4, 10 and 18) wherein the at least one condition comprises a vehicle speed, and wherein the predetermined requirement comprises a vehicle speed below a predetermined threshold;
(re: claims 7, 12, 20) wherein the winch controller is further configured to:
determine at least one condition of an environment of the vehicle and enable power to the winch in response to the at least one condition of the vehicle satisfying the predetermined requirement and the at least one condition of the environment of the vehicle satisfying a predefined criteria;
(re: claims 8, 13) wherein the predefined criteria comprises an absence of people or wildlife objects within an area of concern around the winch.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, Averill may be regarded as not expressly teaching (re: claim 6) a vehicle speed sensor.
Crain, however, teaches that it is well-known in the winch/vehicle control arts to configure
(re: claims 4, 6, 10 and 18)
- a winch control system to receive input from various vehicle sensors to allow more efficient power usage between the winch and vehicle during operations (para. 117 teaching sensor may be configured to detect that vehicle is moving in a selected direction “at a selected speed and /or past a selected threshold”; see generally para. 121-140 teaching various vehicle sensors and that winch motor operation may have its “operation augmented based upon sensor inputs” to allow for optimal operation of both);
(re: claims 7, 8, 12, 13 and 20)
- a winch control system with collision sensors to allow winch operations to continue while avoiding external items, such as trees or humans (para. 138, 141 teaching using of cameras and collision sensors to sense environment, such as proximity of an external item, and adjust speed of winch motor accordingly—wherein predefined criteria can be regarded as determining if there is sufficient space, i.e., absence of object, to continue winch operation).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to the use of a vehicle speed as a predetermined threshold can be regarded as the use of common design parameters/operating variables. This is especially applicable in the vehicle/winch control arts as described above (supra teaching use of vehicle speed and load balancing between vehicle and winch elements are common operating variables). Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above, in legal precedent as described above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., collision and vehicle speed sensors and related control instructions) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Averill for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 2 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averill, Crain and legal precedent (“Averill et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Ehlert et al. (‘Ehlert”)(US 2020/0244091) and what is well known in the art.
Averill et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 2) wherein causing the controller to enable power to the winch comprises causing the controller to provide a signal to at least one of a relay or a solenoid connecting a power source to the winch;
(re: claim 14) wherein the winch power supply comprises a winch battery and a battery charger and wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle and further comprises:
an electric powertrain comprising a battery and at least one electric motor;
a direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) converter, wherein DC to the DC-to-AC converter is provided by the battery, and wherein the AC is provided to the battery charger;
(re: claim 15) wherein the battery comprises a high-voltage battery of over 100-volts, wherein the winch battery comprises a relatively lower-voltage battery of less than 50-volts;
(re: claim 16) an accessory system comprising an accessory battery, wherein the accessory battery comprises a relatively lower-voltage battery of less than 50-volts.
Ehlert, however, teaches that it is well-known in the vehicle/winch control arts to configure a vehicle/winch system with the type of elements found in a hybrid vehicle system to take advantage of the electrical architecture of a hybrid system in managing power loads of a vehicle/winch system (para. 1, 11-15 teaching that winch may be powered by high voltage vehicle battery or low-voltage power system; fig. 1A and para. 26-33 teaching power train, battery, converter and control elements configured to received different levels of AC and DC voltage and manage loads amongst vehicle, accessories and winch).
Indeed, the type of claimed hybrid and battery control element features are well-known in the vehicle/winch control arts and Examiner takes Official Notice of such.
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the vehicle/winch control arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Averill et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights