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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of Applicant’s response, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 12, 14-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 12, 14-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the sequence of conservation steps are executed “to extend the range of the vehicle to complete the mission under power of the energy storage device.” Claim 7 has been similarly amended. Regarding the outstanding rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant contends the following (page 6 of Applicant’s response):
PNG
media_image1.png
198
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that by Applicant’s own admission, Kang teaches the limitation as claimed. Applicant agrees that Kang teaches executing the SOC conservation (“reduces power consumption”) in order to extend the range of the vehicle to complete the mission under power of the energy storage device (“to maximize a driving distance in an EV mode for driving in a zone that is affected by the discharge of exhaust gas”).
Figure 5 and paragraphs [0047]-[0048] of Kang are replicated below:
PNG
media_image2.png
570
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
398
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As can be seen, in Case 1 (as shown in Figure 5), under normal operation without the teachings of Kang, the vehicle is unable to complete driving through the green zone (see [0047]). However, in Case 2, using the multi-stage SOC conservation steps of Kang, the vehicle is able to “increase a driving distance in the EV mode” ([0048]) such that the vehicle is able to green zone section, and as such complete the mission.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive, and the claims stand rejected as presented 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0180599 A1) [hereinafter “Kang”] in view of Belt et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0056973 A1) [hereinafter “Belt”].
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a method for extending a range of a vehicle (see [0024]), comprising: acquiring vehicle information relative to a multistage conservation step criteria, wherein the multistage conservation step criteria includes a current stage of charge of an energy storage device (see [0009]); determining whether the vehicle satisfies the multistage conservation step criteria based on an ability of the vehicle to complete a mission (see [0039] and [0045]); and executing a sequence of conservation steps in stages, wherein each stage progressively restricts vehicle performance in response to the determination to extend the range of the vehicle to complete the mission under power of the energy storage device (see [0041]-[0058] and Figure 5).
Kang does not expressly teach the multistage conservation step criteria includes current operating conditions of the vehicle.
Belt also generally teaches a hybrid vehicle that seeks to conserve battery power to allow a vehicle to reach a destination (see Abstract). Belt teaches that vehicle operating conditions are used to assess whether the vehicle can adequately complete a destination (i.e. reach a destination) based on the current SOC of the battery of the vehicle (see [0047]-[0052]). Belt also teaches determining a current speed of the vehicle to determine if SOC conservation is necessary to complete the mission (see [0036]-[0046]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Kang to include determining a current operating speed of the vehicle and perform SOC conservation, in the manner taught by Kang, as necessary based on the speed, in view of Belt, as Belt teaches this allows the vehicle to ensure adequate battery charge to reach a desired destination.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kang and Belt further teaches the vehicle information includes vehicle speed (see [0036]-[0046] of Belt).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kang and Belt further teaches the conservation steps include derating climate control system operation (see [0048]-[0049] of Kang).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kang and Belt further teaches the multistage conservation step criteria includes a plurality of SOC thresholds, each corresponding to a different conservation stage (see [0041]-[0058] of Kang, specifically Thres1, Thres2, Thres3, and Ext. Min SOC).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kang and Belt further teaches a controller logs each conservation step and associated vehicle condition for later analysis (see [0019]-[0020] and [0060] of Kang; see also [0051] of Belt).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kang and Belt further teaches notifying a vehicle occupant of the current conservation stage and upcoming stages (see [0053] of Kang).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kang and Belt, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches a method for controlling energy usage in a vehicle (see [0024] of Kang), comprising: acquiring SOC data for an energy storage device of the vehicle and operating condition data of the vehicle (see [0009] of Kang and [0036]-[0046] of Belt); evaluating the SOC data and operating condition data against a multistage conservation step criteria, the conservation step criteria comprising a determination of whether the vehicle can complete a mission prior to reaching a destination or depleting the SOC below a minimum reserve (see [0045] of Kang and [0047]-[0052] of Belt); and initiating a multistage sequence of performance-limiting actions, each stage corresponding to a worsening state of the vehicle ability to complete the mission to increase a range of the vehicle to complete the mission under power of the energy storage device (see [0041]-[0058] of Kang).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kang and Belt further teaches each performance-limiting action is more restrictive than a preceding action (see [0046]-[0058] of Kang).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kang and Belt further teaches the mission includes a user-defined destination receive via a navigation system (see [0026]-[0028] of Kang and [0047]-[0048] of Belt).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kang and Belt further teaches the conservation step criteria includes a minimum SOC reserve required to complete the mission (see [0045] of Kang and [0047]-[0052] of Belt).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kang and Belt further teaches the vehicle dynamically adjusts the conservation stage based on update SOC (see [0041]-[0058] of Kang).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14-17, and 19-20 are allowed.
Claims 21-22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 21 recites, in part, “each stage is associated with a SOC band and distance-to-destination threshold.” Claim 22 recites similar limitations. The prior art does not disclose or otherwise render obvious the above-noted limitation of claims 21-22.
As noted above, Kang teaches using SOC bands to determine which SOC conservation stage to activate (see [0041]-[0058] of Kang). Kang does not additionally specify a distance-to-destination threshold for each band. This difference is not rendered obvious by any available evidence in the prior art.
Accordingly, claims 21-22 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights