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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0089354, filed on 07/08/2024.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 05/22/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claim 12 is amended;
No claims are cancelled or added.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending examination, in which Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
The objection to the Drawings, due to minor informalities, is withdrawn;
The objection to Specifications, due to minor informalities, is withdrawn;
The objection to Claim 12, due to minor informalities, is withdrawn;
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
[A.] “Cox does not disclose or suggest performing regenerative braking while selectively controlling, according to the SOC of the low-voltage battery, either discharge from the high-voltage battery to the low-voltage battery or operation of an auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery. Applicants respectfully submit that, at most, Cox discloses activating an electrical load or consuming energy in connection with regenerative braking, which is different from the specific SOC-based selection required by claim 1. Applicants respectfully submit that Cox also does not disclose determining that the vehicle is in a regenerative braking prohibition mode based on the SOC of a high-voltage battery, and then, when brake pad performance has deteriorated, performing regenerative braking together with the above-described low-voltage-battery-SOC-based selective control.;
[B.] “Satoshi does not disclose or suggest determining a regenerative braking prohibition mode based on an SOC of a high-voltage battery and then, when brake pad performance has deteriorated, selecting, according to an SOC of a low-voltage battery, either discharge from the high-voltage battery to the low-voltage battery or operation of an auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery while regenerative braking is simultaneously performed. Satoshi's battery discharge control is not the same as the claimed low-voltage-battery-SOC-based selective control, in which discharge from the high-voltage battery to the low-voltage battery is controlled when the SOC of the low-voltage battery is equal to or less than a preset SOC, and operation of an auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery is controlled when the SOC of the low-voltage battery exceeds the preset SOC.”;
[C.] “Applicants respectfully submit that the resulting combination still would not teach or suggest the claimed control architecture in which, when brake pad performance has deteriorated in a regenerative braking prohibition mode, regenerative braking is performed while selectively controlling, according to an SOC of a low-voltage battery, either discharge from the high-voltage battery to the low-voltage battery or operation of an auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery…Gaither does not teach determining brake pad performance deterioration based on AHBA being equal to or greater than PHBA from a point in time at which the BPS signal is input, nor does Gaither teach performing braking using only hydraulic brake force when AHBA is less than PHBA based on that timing”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. are mute in light of the examiner’s application of new prior art, as addressed below.
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.
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 1-3, 7, 9-14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hatsuda et al. (JP2015061450A, henceforth Hatsuda) and Cox et al. (US 2024/0140259 A1, henceforth Cox).
Regarding Claim 1, Hatsuda teaches the limitations: a regenerative braking control device for an eco-friendly vehicle {Abstract, ¶1}, the regenerative braking control device {control device 7, ¶21} comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions {¶15, memory means}; and one or more processors configured to access the memory {control device 7 (¶21) inherently includes computer type processing capabilities} and execute the instructions {¶21, control device 7 implementing instructions}, wherein the instructions comprise: determining whether the eco-friendly vehicle is in a regenerative braking prohibition mode based on a state of charge (SOC) of a high-voltage battery, while a brake pedal sensor (BPS) signal is input {¶50, battery/SOC is fully charged: “kinetic energy cannot be recovered… only the braking force of the mechanical brake 4”}; determining whether a performance of a brake pad has deteriorated {brake failure detection means 76 (¶51) determines brake pad temperature (¶34)} when the eco-friendly vehicle is in the regenerative braking prohibition mode {battery/SOC fully charged, ¶53}; and performing regenerative braking {¶53, regenerative braking continues after detecting braking}, while simultaneously controlling one of a discharge from the high-voltage battery to a low-voltage battery or an operation of an auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery, when it is determined that the performance of the brake pad has deteriorated {having determined brakes have failed (¶51) and the battery is fully charged (¶53), battery energy is used to run cooling device 51, ¶53}.
Hatsuda does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: controlling one of a discharge from the high-voltage battery to a low-voltage battery or an operation of an auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery according to an SOC of the low-voltage battery.
However, Cox explicitly recites the limitations: controlling one of a discharge from the high-voltage battery to a low-voltage battery {discharging high-voltage battery and charging low-voltage battery discussed in ¶71} or an operation of an auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery according to an SOC of the low-voltage battery {off-loading excess energy to protect the battery: “detecting a regenerative braking event of the vehicle and activating a first electrical load to consume the energy from the regenerative braking event.”, ¶95}.
Hatsuda and Cox are analogous art because they both deal with regenerative braking.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hatsuda and Cox before them, to modify the teachings of Hatsuda to include the teachings of Cox to extend the lifetime of an electric vehicle primary battery {¶48}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Hatsuda does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise reducing a hydraulic brake amount by a regenerative braking amount generated by the regenerative braking.
However, Cox explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise reducing a hydraulic brake amount by a regenerative braking amount generated by the regenerative braking {increasing and decreasing friction braking levels in response to battery charge levels, ¶61}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Hatsuda does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise determining that the eco-friendly vehicle is in the regenerative braking prohibition mode when the SOC of the high-voltage battery is equal to or higher than a preset SOC.
However, Cox explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise determining that the eco-friendly vehicle is in the regenerative braking prohibition mode {“applications will experience degraded regenerative braking when battery state of charge is over approximately 90%, or at high SOC (e.g., greater than 85%)”,¶4} when the SOC of the high-voltage battery is equal to or higher than a preset SOC {“detecting that the battery state of charge is above a first threshold level and activating a first electrical load prior to activation of the regenerative braking system to reduce the battery state of charge below the first threshold level…deactivating the first electrical load when the battery state of charge reaches a second threshold level, the second threshold level lower than the first threshold level. In some examples, the difference between the first and second threshold provides capacity for an expected regenerative braking event.”,¶7; “at high SOC and the regen limit could be increased to be closer to the brake light illumination threshold.”, ¶50}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Hatsuda does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise performing regenerative braking when the SOC of the high-voltage battery is less than a preset SOC.
However, Cox explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise performing regenerative braking {“FIG. 3C illustrates the battery charge rate reduces as the battery reaches the upper state of charge (SOC) limit, thus more braking power is required from the friction brakes during the 12-16 second interval. Battery charging is clipped to protect the battery at high State of Charge (SOC).”, ¶61} when the SOC of the high-voltage battery is less than a preset SOC {“applications will experience degraded regenerative braking when battery state of charge is over approximately 90%, or at high SOC (e.g., greater than 85%)”,¶4}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Hatsuda does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise operating when the eco-friendly vehicle drives down a hill.
However, Cox explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise operating when the eco-friendly vehicle drives down a hill {¶28 and ¶54}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hatsuda explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the auxiliary load includes at least one of a rear heating line, a heater, and an air-conditioner {off-loading battery energy to cooling device 51, ¶53}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hatsuda explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the instructions further comprise controlling an operation of the rear heating line among the auxiliary loads as a top priority {off-loading battery energy to cooling device 51 (¶53) or “air conditioner 5… heating device 52” (¶24)} and controlling the heater and air-conditioner according to an outside temperature {operating heating and cooling devices (¶24) according to a temperature differential is well known to one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 12, Hatsuda teaches the limitations: regenerative braking control method for an eco-friendly vehicle {Abstract, ¶1}, the regenerative braking control method comprising: a first operation of determining, by a processor {control device 7 (¶21) inherently includes computer type processing capabilities}, whether the eco-friendly vehicle is in a regenerative braking prohibition mode based on a state of charge (SOC) of a high-voltage battery, while a brake pedal sensor (BPS) signal is input {¶50, battery/SOC is fully charged: “kinetic energy cannot be recovered… only the braking force of the mechanical brake 4”}; a second operation of determining whether a performance of a brake pad has deteriorated {brake failure detection means 76 (¶51) determines brake pad temperature (¶34)} when the eco-friendly vehicle is in the regenerative braking prohibition mode {battery/SOC fully charged, ¶53}; and a third operation of performing regenerative braking, while simultaneously controlling one of a discharge from the high-voltage battery to a low-voltage battery or operation of an auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery {¶53, regenerative braking continues after detecting braking}, when it is determined that the performance of the brake pad has deteriorated {having determined brakes have failed (¶51) and the battery is fully charged (¶53), battery energy is used to run cooling device 51, ¶53}.
Hatsuda does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: controlling one of a discharge from the high-voltage battery to a low-voltage battery or an operation of an auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery according to an SOC of the low-voltage battery.
However, Cox explicitly recites the limitations: controlling one of a discharge from the high-voltage battery to a low-voltage battery {discharging high-voltage battery and charging low-voltage battery discussed in ¶71} or an operation of an auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery according to an SOC of the low-voltage battery {off-loading excess energy to protect the battery: “detecting a regenerative braking event of the vehicle and activating a first electrical load to consume the energy from the regenerative braking event.”, ¶95}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. Hatsuda does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: further comprising a fourth operation of reducing a hydraulic brake amount by a regenerative braking amount generated by the regenerative braking.
However, Cox explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising a fourth operation of reducing a hydraulic brake amount by a regenerative braking amount generated by the regenerative braking {increasing and decreasing friction braking levels in response to battery charge levels, ¶61}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. Hatsuda does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein, in the first operation, it is determined that the eco-friendly vehicle is in the regenerative braking prohibition mode when the SOC of the high-voltage battery is equal to or higher than a preset SOC.
However, Cox explicitly recites the limitations: wherein, in the first operation, it is determined that the eco-friendly vehicle is in the regenerative braking prohibition mode {“applications will experience degraded regenerative braking when battery state of charge is over approximately 90%, or at high SOC (e.g., greater than 85%)”,¶4} when the SOC of the high-voltage battery is equal to or higher than a preset SOC {“detecting that the battery state of charge is above a first threshold level and activating a first electrical load prior to activation of the regenerative braking system to reduce the battery state of charge below the first threshold level…deactivating the first electrical load when the battery state of charge reaches a second threshold level, the second threshold level lower than the first threshold level. In some examples, the difference between the first and second threshold provides capacity for an expected regenerative braking event.”,¶7; “at high SOC and the regen limit could be increased to be closer to the brake light illumination threshold.”, ¶50}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. Hatsuda does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the first operation further includes performing regenerative braking when the SOC of the high-voltage battery is less than a preset SOC.
However, Cox explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the first operation further includes performing regenerative braking when {“FIG. 3C illustrates the battery charge rate reduces as the battery reaches the upper state of charge (SOC) limit, thus more braking power is required from the friction brakes during the 12-16 second interval. Battery charging is clipped to protect the battery at high State of Charge (SOC).”, ¶61} when the SOC of the high-voltage battery is less than a preset SOC {“applications will experience degraded regenerative braking when battery state of charge is over approximately 90%, or at high SOC (e.g., greater than 85%)”,¶4}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. Hatsuda does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the regenerative braking control method of the eco-friendly vehicle is applied when driving downhill.
However, Cox explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the regenerative braking control method of the eco-friendly vehicle is applied when driving downhill {¶28 and ¶54}.
Claims 4, 8, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hatsuda, Cox and Gaither et al. (US 2018/0134161 A1, henceforth Gaither).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Hatsuda and Cox does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the instructions further comprise determining that the performance of the brake pad has deteriorated when an accumulated hydraulic brake amount (AHBA) is equal to or greater than a preset hydraulic brake amount (PHBA) based on a point in time at which the BPS signal is input.
However, Gaither explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the instructions further comprise determining that the performance of the brake pad has deteriorated when an accumulated hydraulic brake amount (AHBA) is equal to or greater than a preset hydraulic brake amount (PHBA) based on a point in time at which the BPS signal is input {“The memory stores a brake wear module including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to identify whether brake wear of at least one of the friction brakes satisfies a threshold for modifying a deceleration pattern of the vehicle.”, ¶6, and “the vehicle may be equipped with sensors to measure wear of the brake pads, a monitoring component to track use of the friction brakes, acceleration sensors that identify an amount of braking force in relation to brake pedal stroke, and/or other means of assessing an amount of brake wear of the friction brakes. The adaptive control system uses the information about the brake wear to adjust activation of the regenerative brakes to compensate for the brake wear”, ¶18}.
Hatsuda, Cox and Gaither are analogous art because they deal with regenerative braking systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hatsuda, Cox and Gaither before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Hatsuda and Cox to include the teachings of Gaither to identify the degree of brake wear and use this information to compensate for brake wear in a dual regenerative and mechanical braking system {¶6 and ¶18}.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Hatsuda and Cox does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise performing braking using only hydraulic brake force when an AHBA is less than a PHBA based on a point in time at which the BPS signal is input.
However, Gaither explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the instructions further comprise performing braking using only hydraulic brake force when an AHBA is less than a PHBA based on a point in time at which the BPS signal is input {“The memory stores a brake wear module including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to identify whether brake wear of at least one of the friction brakes satisfies a threshold for modifying a deceleration pattern of the vehicle.”, ¶6, and “the vehicle may be equipped with sensors to measure wear of the brake pads, a monitoring component to track use of the friction brakes, acceleration sensors that identify an amount of braking force in relation to brake pedal stroke, and/or other means of assessing an amount of brake wear of the friction brakes. The adaptive control system uses the information about the brake wear to adjust activation of the regenerative brakes to compensate for the brake wear”, ¶18}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. The combination of Hatsuda and Cox does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein, in the second operation, it is determined that the performance of the brake pad has deteriorated when an accumulated hydraulic brake amount (AHBA) is equal to or greater than a preset hydraulic brake amount (PHBA) based on a point in time at which the BPS signal is input.
However, Gaither explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, in the second operation, it is determined that the performance of the brake pad has deteriorated when an accumulated hydraulic brake amount (AHBA) is equal to or greater than a preset hydraulic brake amount (PHBA) based on a point in time at which the BPS signal is input {“The memory stores a brake wear module including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to identify whether brake wear of at least one of the friction brakes satisfies a threshold for modifying a deceleration pattern of the vehicle.”, ¶6, and “the vehicle may be equipped with sensors to measure wear of the brake pads, a monitoring component to track use of the friction brakes, acceleration sensors that identify an amount of braking force in relation to brake pedal stroke, and/or other means of assessing an amount of brake wear of the friction brakes. The adaptive control system uses the information about the brake wear to adjust activation of the regenerative brakes to compensate for the brake wear”, ¶18}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. The combination of Hatsuda and Cox does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the second operation further includes performing braking using only hydraulic brake force when an AHBA is less than a PHBA based on a point in time at which the BPS signal is input.
However, Gaither explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the second operation further includes performing braking using only hydraulic brake force when an AHBA is less than a PHBA based on a point in time at which the BPS signal is input {“The memory stores a brake wear module including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to identify whether brake wear of at least one of the friction brakes satisfies a threshold for modifying a deceleration pattern of the vehicle.”, ¶6, and “the vehicle may be equipped with sensors to measure wear of the brake pads, a monitoring component to track use of the friction brakes, acceleration sensors that identify an amount of braking force in relation to brake pedal stroke, and/or other means of assessing an amount of brake wear of the friction brakes. The adaptive control system uses the information about the brake wear to adjust activation of the regenerative brakes to compensate for the brake wear”, ¶18}.
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hatsuda, Cox and Satoshi et al. (JP 2018/187964 A, henceforth Satoshi).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Hatsuda and Cox does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the instructions further comprise controlling the discharge from the high-voltage battery to the low- voltage battery and simultaneously performing regenerative braking when the SOC of the low- voltage battery is equal to or less than a preset SOC.
However, Satoshi explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise controlling the discharge from the high-voltage battery to the low-voltage battery {regenerative braking combined with energy use by “power consumption means” (¶27) is described in ¶48} and simultaneously performing regenerative braking {adding regenerative braking to mechanical braking to reduce brake wear, ¶56; also cooperative braking discussed in ¶29, 41, 42} when the SOC of the low-voltage battery is equal to or less than a preset SOC {The examiner interprets this as the availability of energy storage capacity or availability of a place to off-load energy to, the latter of which corresponds to power consumption means 44, which receives power from battery 33, ¶39}.
Hatsuda, Cox and Satoshi are analogous art because they deal with regenerative braking.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hatsuda and Cox before them, to modify the teachings of Hatsuda and Cox to include the teachings of Satoshi to initiate cooperative braking, using both mechanical and regenerative braking, to reduce brake pad wear {¶29, 41, 42}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Hatsuda and Cox does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the instructions further comprise controlling the operation of the auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery and simultaneously performing regenerative braking when the SOC of the low-voltage battery exceeds a preset SOC.
However, Satoshi explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the instructions further comprise controlling the operation of the auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery and simultaneously performing regenerative braking {adding regenerative braking to mechanical braking to reduce brake wear, ¶56; also cooperative braking discussed in ¶29, 41, 42} when the SOC of the low-voltage battery exceeds a preset SOC {The examiner interprets this as limited availability of energy storage capacity or limited availability of one or more off-load devices: the power consumption means 44 in ¶39 is comprised of multiple devices (i.e., “power consumption means 44 is constituted by various auxiliary machines (not shown) mounted on the vehicle 100.”, ¶26) thus one skilled in the art will appreciate of power consumption device is unavailable and available power can be supplied to a different device}.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. The combination of Hatsuda and Cox does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the third operation includes controlling the discharge from the high-voltage battery to the low-voltage battery and simultaneously performing regenerative braking, when the SOC of the low-voltage battery is equal to or less than a preset SOC.
However, Satoshi explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the third operation includes controlling the discharge from the high-voltage battery to the low-voltage battery {regenerative braking combined with energy use by “power consumption means” (¶27) is described in ¶48} simultaneously performing regenerative braking {adding regenerative braking to mechanical braking to reduce brake wear, ¶56; also cooperative braking discussed in ¶29, 41, 42}, when the SOC of the low-voltage battery is equal to or less than a preset SOC {The examiner interprets this as the availability of energy storage capacity or availability of a place to off-load energy to, the latter of which corresponds to power consumption means 44, which receives power from battery 33, ¶39}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Hatsuda and Cox discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. The combination of Hatsuda and Cox does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the third operation includes controlling the operation of the auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery and simultaneously performing regenerative braking when the SOC of the low-voltage battery exceeds a preset SOC.
However, Satoshi explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the third operation includes controlling the operation of the auxiliary load by the high-voltage battery and simultaneously performing regenerative braking {adding regenerative braking to mechanical braking to reduce brake wear:, ¶56; also cooperative braking discussed in ¶29, 41, 42} when the SOC of the low-voltage battery exceeds a preset SOC {The examiner interprets this as limited availability of energy storage capacity or limited availability of one or more off-load devices: the power consumption means 44 in ¶39 is comprised of multiple devices (i.e., “power consumption means 44 is constituted by various auxiliary machines (not shown) mounted on the vehicle 100.”, ¶26) thus one skilled in the art will appreciate of power consumption device is unavailable and available power can be supplied to a different device}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights