Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/075,924

METHOD PERFORMED BY A CONTROL ARRANGEMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 11, 2025
Priority
Mar 20, 2024 — SE 2450308-8
Examiner
MOHL, PATRICK DANIEL
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Traton AB
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 2m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
81 granted / 120 resolved
+7.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
132
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§103
39.4%
-0.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 120 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Specification The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1 and 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levin (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0059179). Regarding claim 1, Levin teaches a method performed by a control arrangement configured to control an electrically powered vehicle, the method comprising: determining a desired total braking force to act on one or more powertrains of the electrically powered vehicle (Paragraph 0048 A control unit 100 is configured to acquire data 202 indicating a potential regenerative charging amount for the electric energy storage 2 during an upcoming braking cycle 9 for the electric vehicle 1.); estimating a first braking force indicative of an offered braking force to act on the one or more powertrains (Paragraph 0051 The route data may include road and vehicle characteristics such as road inclination, the type of road material such as gravel asphalt, concrete, etc, road altitude, uphill sections and downhill sections, braking cycles, and even potential regenerative charging amounts and the associated coordinates.) using characteristics of a power storage of the electrically powered vehicle (Paragraph 0057 For example, the control unit 100 may acquire data indicating a present state of charge of the battery 2 and calculate at what pace the battery 2 must be discharged to reach a preparatory state of charge to receive the regenerative charging at the brake cycle 9.) and characteristics of a braking unit of the electrically powered vehicle (Paragraph 0052 In some possible implementations, the potential regenerative charging amount is determined from historical potential regenerative charging amounts at the upcoming braking cycle 9.); evaluating when the first braking force is greater than the offered braking force (Paragraph 0054 Returning to the flow-charts in FIGS. 3 and 4, the method includes, before reaching the braking cycle 9, generating driving torque using at least one electric machine 102a while at the same time generating a braking torque using a brake generating device 102b, 204 to discharge the electric energy storage sufficient to receive the potential regenerative charging amount at the upcoming braking cycle 9 in step S104.), and if the evaluation is true, the method further comprising the steps: controlling a first electric machine to generate a driving force acting on one of the one or more powertrains, the first electric machine being electrically coupled to the power storage (Paragraph 0055 For step S104, the control unit 100 is configured to control the at least one electric machine 102 to generate driving torque and the brake generating device 204 to simultaneously as the driving torque is generated, generate braking torque, to discharge the electric energy storage sufficient to receive and store the potential regenerative charging amount at the upcoming braking cycle.); and controlling the braking unit to generate a second braking force counteracting the driving force and acting on one of the one or more powertrains of the electrically powered vehicle (Paragraph 0056 The generated driving torque corresponds to the sum of a demanded driving torque and the generated braking torque. This provides for the discharging of the electric energy storage 2 without affecting, or with minimal effect on the driving capability of vehicle as experienced by the driver.). Regarding claim 5, Levin teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Levin further teaches wherein the desired total braking force is determined based on output from an input device controlled by a user (Paragraph 0062 The output torque of the gear box is thus substantially equal to the torque presently demanded by the driver, Tdemand.). Regarding claim 6, Levin teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Levin further teaches wherein the desired total braking force is determined based on output from a vehicle navigation module (Paragraph 0049 For example, as is indicated in the flow-chart in FIG. 4, the step S102 may be preceded by step S202 comprising acquiring planned route data indicative of a drive cycle of the electric vehicle including the braking cycle 9.), the output from the from vehicle navigation module comprising a first brake force profile over time (Paragraph 0049 Step S102 may then include determining the potential regenerative charging amount using the planned route data.), wherein the first brake force profile over time is predicted using vehicle route and map data by the navigation module (Paragraph 0049 The planned route data may be comprised in the data 202 acquired by the control unit 100 which determines the potential regenerative charging amount from the planned route data 202.). Regarding claim 7, Levin teaches the method of claim 6 as set forth above. Levin further teaches wherein the characteristics of the power storage further include state of charge of the power storage, wherein the offered braking force comprises a second brake force profile over time derived using the state of charge of the power storage (Paragraph 0057 For example, the control unit 100 may acquire data indicating a present state of charge of the battery 2 and calculate at what pace the battery 2 must be discharged to reach a preparatory state of charge to receive the regenerative charging at the brake cycle 9. Using the present state of charge, the determined potential regenerative charging amount, and an estimate of the discharge rate, the control unit 100 may initiate the generation of driving torque at a time and with a magnitude so that the discharging of the electric energy storage 2 is completed immediately before reaching the braking cycle 9.), wherein evaluating when the desired total braking force is greater than the offered braking force comprises comparing the first brake force profile over time to the second brake force profile over time (Paragraph 0056 The generated driving torque corresponds to the sum of a demanded driving torque and the generated braking torque. This provides for the discharging of the electric energy storage 2 without affecting, or with minimal effect on the driving capability of vehicle as experienced by the driver.). Regarding claim 8, Levin teaches an electrically powered vehicle comprising: one or more powertrains (Paragraph 0061 Further, the electric machines l02a-b are mechanically connected to the wheels l04a-b via respective shafts 106 and 107 connected to a common input shaft 103 of a gear box 103 by means or a respective gear train 112 or any other suitable gear connection. The output shaft 109 from the gear box 105 provides power to the driving axle 110 of the wheels l04a-b.); a power storage configured to store electrical energy, provide electrical energy, and receive electrical energy (Paragraph 0044 FIG. 1 illustrates a vehicle in the form of an electric truck 1 comprising a propulsion battery 2 generally comprising a plurality of series and parallel connected battery cells.), one or more sensors coupled to the power storage and configured to measure characteristics of the power storage (Paragraph 0044 The electric truck 1 further comprises a battery managing system 10 which is configured to monitor battery cell characteristics such as SOC, battery voltage, and optionally temperature of the battery cells.); a first electric machine configured to generate a driving force acting on at least one of the one or more powertrains, the first electric machine being electrically coupled to the power storage (Paragraph 0048 A block diagram of the driveline system 200 is shown in FIG. 5, comprising at least one electric machine 102 configured to provide driving torque…); and a braking unit configured to generate a braking force counteracting the driving force and acting on at least one of the one or more powertrains (Paragraph 0048 A block diagram of the driveline system 200 is shown in FIG. 5, comprising… a brake generating device 204 configured to provide braking torque to the driveline.); and a control arrangement (Paragraph 0048 A control unit 100 is configured to acquire data 202 indicating a potential regenerative charging amount for the electric energy storage 2 during an upcoming braking cycle 9 for the electric vehicle 1.) comprising a processor, and a memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor, wherein the control arrangement is communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors, the braking unit and the first electric machine, and wherein said control arrangement is operative to perform the method of: determining a desired total braking force to act on one or more powertrains of the electrically powered vehicle (Paragraph 0048 A control unit 100 is configured to acquire data 202 indicating a potential regenerative charging amount for the electric energy storage 2 during an upcoming braking cycle 9 for the electric vehicle 1.); estimating a first braking force indicative of an offered braking force to act on the one or more powertrains (Paragraph 0051 The route data may include road and vehicle characteristics such as road inclination, the type of road material such as gravel asphalt, concrete, etc, road altitude, uphill sections and downhill sections, braking cycles, and even potential regenerative charging amounts and the associated coordinates.) using characteristics of a power storage of the electrically powered vehicle (Paragraph 0057 For example, the control unit 100 may acquire data indicating a present state of charge of the battery 2 and calculate at what pace the battery 2 must be discharged to reach a preparatory state of charge to receive the regenerative charging at the brake cycle 9.) and characteristics of a braking unit of the electrically powered vehicle (Paragraph 0052 In some possible implementations, the potential regenerative charging amount is determined from historical potential regenerative charging amounts at the upcoming braking cycle 9.); evaluating when the first braking force is greater than the offered braking force (Paragraph 0054 Returning to the flow-charts in FIGS. 3 and 4, the method includes, before reaching the braking cycle 9, generating driving torque using at least one electric machine 102a while at the same time generating a braking torque using a brake generating device 102b, 204 to discharge the electric energy storage sufficient to receive the potential regenerative charging amount at the upcoming braking cycle 9 in step S104.), and if the evaluation is true, the method further comprising the steps: controlling a first electric machine to generate a driving force acting on one of the one or more powertrains, the first electric machine being electrically coupled to the power storage (Paragraph 0055 For step S104, the control unit 100 is configured to control the at least one electric machine 102 to generate driving torque and the brake generating device 204 to simultaneously as the driving torque is generated, generate braking torque, to discharge the electric energy storage sufficient to receive and store the potential regenerative charging amount at the upcoming braking cycle.); and controlling the braking unit to generate a second braking force counteracting the driving force and acting on one of the one or more powertrains of the electrically powered vehicle (Paragraph 0056 The generated driving torque corresponds to the sum of a demanded driving torque and the generated braking torque. This provides for the discharging of the electric energy storage 2 without affecting, or with minimal effect on the driving capability of vehicle as experienced by the driver.). Regarding claim 9, Levin teaches the system of claim 8 as set forth above. Levin further teaches wherein the braking unit comprises a second electric machine, the second electric machine being electrically coupled to the power storage (Paragraph 0059 Turning to FIG. 6, conceptually illustrating a driveline system 200 according to embodiments of the invention. The drive line system 200 comprises two electric machines 102a and 102b electrically connected to a propulsion battery 2 via converters, PWM (pulse-width modulation) modules, and other electric components needed for converting the energy in the battery 2 to a suitable voltage or current level for the electric machines l02a-b.). Regarding claim 10, Levin teaches the system of claim 8 as set forth above. Levin further teaches wherein the braking unit comprises auxiliary brakes (Paragraph 0058 The electric vehicle may comprise a secondary braking system for generating the braking torque. For example, the secondary braking system may comprise a retarder adapted to generated braking torque as demanded by the control unit 100. The retarder may be configured to provide at least part of the braking torque and may be assisted by for example an electric machine.). Regarding claim 11, Levin teaches the system of claim 10 as set forth above. Levin further teaches wherein the auxiliary brakes are selected from any one of exhaust brake, retarder, Compression Release Engine Brake brakes (Paragraph 0058 The electric vehicle may comprise a secondary braking system for generating the braking torque. For example, the secondary braking system may comprise a retarder adapted to generated braking torque as demanded by the control unit 100. The retarder may be configured to provide at least part of the braking torque and may be assisted by for example an electric machine.). Regarding claim 12, Levin teaches the system of claim 8 as set forth above. Levin further teaches wherein the first electric machine and the braking unit are configured to act on the same one of the one or more powertrains (Paragraph 0060 Further, the electric machines 102a-b are mechanically connected to the wheels 104a-b via respective shafts 106 and 107 connected to a common input shaft 103 of a gear box 103 by means or a respective gear train 112 or any other suitable gear connection. The output shaft 109 from the gear box 105 provides power to the driving axle 110 of the wheels l04a-b.). Regarding claim 13, Levin teaches the system of claim 8 as set forth above. Levin further teaches wherein the first electric machine and the braking unit are configured to act on different powertrains of the one or more powertrains (Paragraph 0058 The electric vehicle may comprise a secondary braking system for generating the braking torque. For example, the secondary braking system may comprise a retarder adapted to generated braking torque as demanded by the control unit 100. The retarder may be configured to provide at least part of the braking torque and may be assisted by for example an electric machine.). Regarding claims 14 and 15, the claims are commensurate in scope with claim 1 with the exception that claims 14 and 15 are directed to a control arrangement and a computer program product respectively. Therefore, the same prior art can be applied to claims 14 and 15 as was applied to claim 1 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, 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. Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin in view of Miller (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0126759. Regarding claim 2, Levin teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Levin does not teach wherein the characteristics of the power storage include a maximum momentary current that the power storage can receive, and wherein the characteristics of the braking unit include regenerative braking force, wherein estimating the first braking force comprises matching the maximum momentary current to a corresponding regenerative braking force using a predetermined relation. Miller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for controlling a regenerative braking force for a vehicle. The system uses sensors to determine a state of charge of the battery (Paragraph 0305 Referring now to graph 900 of FIG. 9, while the charge level of battery pack 106 is higher, (represent as being near the origin on the x-axis), the BMS REGEN CURRENT LIMIT and OrionPackCCL variables have lower values. When the maximum amount of DC current acceptable by battery pack 106 represented by the OrionPackCCL variable is at or near zero, BMS_Regen_Current_Limit may be equal to 5%.) and determines an available regenerative braking force based on a maximum current that the battery pack can currently accept (Paragraph 0308 Alternatively, if motor controller 102 determines that the amount of regenerative braking current exceeds the current the battery pack 106 can accept, the drive current limit handling subroutine may cause drive motor 104 to reduce the amount of regenerative current supplied to the battery pack 106 regenerate the charge level of battery pack 106.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Levin with the teachings of Miller which teaches using sensors to determine a state of charge of the battery and determining an available regenerative braking force based on a maximum current that the battery pack can currently accept in order to protect the battery from an overcurrent (See Miller Paragraph 0305 The BMS_Regen_Current_Limit may be set to a relatively low percentage, such as 5%, to protect battery pack 106 from receiving substantial amounts of current.). Regarding claim 3, Levin in view of Miller teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. However, Levin does not teach wherein the maximum momentary current that the power storage can receive is determined based on measurements of a selection of current sensors, voltage sensors and temperature sensors coupled to the power storage. Miller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for controlling a regenerative braking force for a vehicle. The system uses sensors to determine a state of charge of the battery (Paragraph 0305 Referring now to graph 900 of FIG. 9, while the charge level of battery pack 106 is higher, (represent as being near the origin on the x-axis), the BMS REGEN CURRENT LIMIT and OrionPackCCL variables have lower values. When the maximum amount of DC current acceptable by battery pack 106 represented by the OrionPackCCL variable is at or near zero, BMS_Regen_Current_Limit may be equal to 5%.) and determines an available regenerative braking force based on a maximum current that the battery pack can currently accept (Paragraph 0308 Alternatively, if motor controller 102 determines that the amount of regenerative braking current exceeds the current the battery pack 106 can accept, the drive current limit handling subroutine may cause drive motor 104 to reduce the amount of regenerative current supplied to the battery pack 106 regenerate the charge level of battery pack 106.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Levin with the teachings of Miller which teaches using sensors to determine a state of charge of the battery and determining an available regenerative braking force based on a maximum current that the battery pack can currently accept in order to protect the battery from an overcurrent (See Miller Paragraph 0305 The BMS_Regen_Current_Limit may be set to a relatively low percentage, such as 5%, to protect battery pack 106 from receiving substantial amounts of current.). Regarding claim 4, Levin in view of Miller teaches the method of claim 3 as set forth above. Levin further teaches wherein the first electric machine is controlled to a first working point having a relatively low momentary braking force if a difference between the first braking force and the offered braking force is below a threshold value (Paragraph 0055 For step S104, the control unit 100 is configured to control the at least one electric machine 102 to generate driving torque and the brake generating device 204 to simultaneously as the driving torque is generated, generate braking torque, to discharge the electric energy storage sufficient to receive and store the potential regenerative charging amount at the upcoming braking cycle.). Conclusion The prior art made of the record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Held – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0222929 HOLMSTRÖM – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0162423 JOHNSON – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0206144 Park – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0122372 Hanslik – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0258708 CHON – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0149690 SHIBATA – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0136075 SURYANARAYANAN – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0196652 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D MOHL whose telephone number is (571)272-8987. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00AM-4:00PM. 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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. /PATRICK DANIEL MOHL/Examiner, Art Unit 3666 /ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 11, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12693123
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REFINING NAVIGATION INPUT
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12682700
VEHICLE CONDITION DIAGNOSIS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679174
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING A RETRACTABLE BELLYPAN OF A VEHICLE TO IMPROVE HVAC AND ENGINE COOLING PERFORMANCE
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12668348
MARINE PROPULSION SYSTEM, CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR, AND MARINE VESSEL
1y 11m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12644255
AGRICULTURAL TRACTOR
1y 6m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+12.9%)
2y 7m (~1y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 120 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month