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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on April 14, 2026. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/962372, published as Lee (US 20250388125 A1).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected as the same or obvious variants in view of claims 1 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/962372.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected as the same or obvious variants in view of claims 8 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/962372.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim et al. (US 20130141045 A1) herein Karim in view of Peng et al. (CN 114905982 A) herein Peng.
In regards to Claim 1, Karim discloses the following:
1. A method of controlling batteries for a vehicle, (see Fig. 2 and [0030], main battery pack (MBP) 240 and a supplemental battery pack (SBP) 250) the vehicle including a driving motor (see Fig. 2, motor/generator 270) for providing a driving force to a wheel of the vehicle, (see [0005] “electric vehicle”) the method comprising:
selecting, by a controller, a battery among a first battery and a second battery based on a plurality of driving areas and an operation point for the driving motor, (see at least Fig. 4C “MBP” and “SBP”, Fig. 6B, step 620 “POWER DEFICIT AT MOTOR”, [0047] “the SBP is… designed in the battery pack so as to satisfy the power demands of the load, e.g. the EV electric motor” and [0049] “operation 620 determines whether a power deficit exists in the SBP, and if so, proceeds to operation 626 to discharge the MBP in parallel with discharging the SBP in order to supplement the SBP with additional current.”)
Karim does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Peng:
wherein i) each of the plurality of driving areas is defined based on a torque and a number of rotations per time in association with the driving motor and ii) the operation point is defined by a torque and a number of rotations per time for operating the driving motor; (see at least [n0006] “first battery module is used to supply power to the front electric drive system assembly”, [n0007] “second battery module is used to supply power to the rear electric drive system assembly”) and [m0068] “control communication module allocates power to the front and rear electric drive system assemblies based on the collected status of the two battery modules and the two electric drive system assemblies…. allocation ratio is mainly calibrated based on parameters such as output power requirements, current battery SOC, temperature, motor speed, and torque to ensure that the two battery modules can maintain the same driving range as much as possible.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Peng with the invention of Karim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of extending battery life in dual-battery electric vehicles where consumption rates of each electric drive system assembly to be asynchronous, resulting in a situation where one battery is depleted while the other still has a lot of power. (Peng, [n0002], [n0117])
Karim discloses the following:
and controlling, by the controller, use of the selected battery to supply power to the driving motor (see at least Fig. 6B and [0047]) or receive power regenerated by the driving motor, (see at least [0006] “charge the battery from regenerative braking”)
wherein selecting the battery includes classifying the plurality of driving areas according to a reference power. (see at least Fig. 4C, “SoC”, “DISCHG MAIN BTTY”, “DISCHG SUPPL BTTY”, “DISCHG MAIN + SUPPL BTTY” and point PD)
Karim discloses a plurality of SOC conditions in the graph of Fig. 4C that provide for determination (i.e. selection) of main and supplemental battery use, that is within the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “driving areas”, as claimed, wherein the BRI of “driving areas” includes areas on a graph as a vehicle drives. Karim also discloses a motor power deficit condition, within the BRI of an operating point for the driving motor, and selection of a battery thereof, as claimed. The classification of said plurality of driving areas of Karim (e.g. “DISCHG MAIN BTTY”, “DISCHG SUPPL BTTY”, “DISCHG MAIN + SUPPL BTTY”) is based on the “SoC” (i.e. state of charge, AKA a voltage measurement) of the batteries, and therefore is not explicitly a reference power. It should be further noted that battery power levels are also disclosed in Karim. (See at least Table 1 “Peak Power”, Table 2 “Max Power”, “Min Power”, and Table 3 “max power P1”, “max power P2”)
However, as is well known in the art, Power (P) = current (I) * voltage (V). Further, battery SoC is a well-known determination of battery power available in a statis battery (i.e. current = 0). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a battery SoC as the power reference function to control the driving areas of Karim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of matching battery design ratings to a particular application. The application's need may be in terms of power (rate), total energy (capacity), quantity of cycling, depth of cycling, thermal characteristics, impedance, etc. or some combination of these. (Karim, [0004]) Further, the results of this modification would have been predictable.
In regards to claim 11: Claim 11 is the vehicle controller configured to perform the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim in view of Peng, as applied, and in further view of Moriki et al. (US 20130013159 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Karim is silent, but Moriki teaches the following:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein classifying the plurality of driving areas includes classifying the plurality of driving areas according to an equal power reference line of the reference power based on a torque-rotations per minute (RPM) map of the driving motor. (see at least Fig. 1, “Equal power curve L1” and “Equal power curve L2” of a torque-rotations per minute (RPM) map of electric motor during motoring and regeneration, per [0014], of an electric forklift truck, per Fig. 3 and [0023])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Moriki with the invention of Karim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing variations in the electric motor when a load is applied. (Moriki, [0005])
In regards to claim 3, Karim discloses the following:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein classifying the plurality of driving areas further includes determining the reference power based on respective usage levels of the first battery and the second battery, the respective usage levels determined based on respective charge levels of the first battery and the second battery. (see at least Fig. 4C, “SoC”, “DISCHG MAIN BTTY”, “DISCHG SUPPL BTTY”, “DISCHG MAIN + SUPPL BTTY” and point PD)
In regards to claims 12-13: Claims 12-13 are the vehicle controllers configured to perform the methods of claims 1-2, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 1-2, above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim in view of Peng and Moriki, as applied, and further in view of Kelty et al. (US 20120041626 A1) herein Kelty.
In regards to claim 4, Karim is silent, but Kelty teaches the following:
4. The method of claim 3, wherein determining the reference power includes determining the reference power based on an expected driving route and the respective usage levels of the first battery and the second battery. (see at least Fig. 3 and [0035] FIG. 3 illustrates the basic methodology associated with… a power source comprised of at least two battery packs of different battery types” and [0037] “In step 309, controller 107 determines the optimal split of battery pack usage based on the distance to travel before recharging and on the calculated power required to reach that distance.” And [0058] “if controller 107 has access to specific route information, for example due to the user inputting a specific destination or travel itinerary into the vehicle's navigation system during step 307, then the vehicle efficiency data input in step 305 is fine tuned.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Kelty with the invention of Karim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a system that combines a metal-air battery pack with a conventional battery pack in order to gain the benefits and advantages associated with each battery pack type. (Kelty, [0004]-[0006])
In regards to claim 14: Claim 14 is the vehicle controller configured to perform the method of claim 4, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 4, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 15 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.
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are also objected to in a similar fashion at least due to dependency upon claims 5 and 15, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in this FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
June 25, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights