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 .
Examiner’s Comment
The examiner determined a 101 rejection was not necessary based on the specification. In paragraph [0014] of the specification it states “In the case of a hybrid electric vehicle (e.g., a general hybrid electric vehicle, not a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle) that is in a place where the vehicle cannot be connected to an external power supply device, or cannot be connected to an external power supply device, idle charging in which the engine is driven to charge a battery with a motor (e.g., a HSG or the like) may be used to continuously use vehicle power for a long period of time, and such idle charging may cause problems, such as engine noise, vibration, and exhaust fumes. In addition, when idling for a long time, problems, such as violation of regulations and decreased engine durability, may occur.”, in paragraph [0015] it states “Accordingly, it may be useful to manage vehicle power (e.g., battery power) so that electric devices may be used for a long time in a parked vehicle without performing idle charging using engine idling in the parked vehicle.” and in paragraph [0020] it states “The present disclosure has been made in an effort to solve the above-described problems associated with prior art, and the present disclosure provides a method of controlling electric power usage of a vehicle having a stay mode that may secure a longer power usage time through efficient power usage control while the stay mode is being performed at a user's request.”. The limitations of the independent claim 1 integrate into a practical application based on the paragraphs in the specification that describe the improvement of controlling the power usage of a vehicle with a stay mode.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkenbell (CN 107264300 A) in view of Plank (US 20210309132 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Birkenbell teaches:
A method of controlling electric power usage of a vehicle
displaying, by a control unit, information on available usage modes of the stay mode on a display;
(Birkenbell – On page 3, it states “The second aspect of the relates to a method for implementing the method of one or more embodiments of the system, the system comprises a control unit and graphical user interface are coupled to each other. wherein the battery state-of-charge information and the current power may limit displayed via a graphical user interface, and can be input with each electric device of electric vehicle of electric power consumption related control command, and the control unit is configured to determine the power consumption of each electric device and according to control command execution control process”)
when a usage mode of the available usage modes is selected through an input device, determining, by the control unit, a total operating power of electric devices set to be operated in the selected usage mode based on setting information of an operating status of each electric device set for the usage mode, and determining an integrated power limit from the total operating power of the electric devices;
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “In addition, graphical user interface 6 includes a control panel or input device which can be used for manual input and each electric device of electric vehicle of electric power consumption related control command. control command through the graphical user interface 6 is transmitted to the control device 4, the control device 4 correspondingly controlling each device of the vehicle 1. can be provided, the user, in other words generally is a driver of the associated vehicle, it can response independently set the obtained control command information, and instructing the control unit 4 independently controlling current power consumption mode based on the remaining energy reserve.”)
determining, by the control unit, a power limit of each electric device distributed from the determined integrated power limit based on the setting information of the operating status of each electric device; and
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “In system 2, control unit 4 and graphical user interface 6 are coupled to each other. graphical user interface 6 is configured or programmed to display information about the battery 5 state of charge and the possibility of selecting electric device power limit. control unit 4 is configured to determine the power consumption of each device, the value of determining the transmission to the display of graphical user interface 6 according to the control command execution control program.”)
operating, by the control unit, each electric device using battery power depending on the setting information of the operating status of each electric device, and limiting power usage of each electric device depending on the determined power limit of each electric device.
(Birkenbell – On page 3, it states “The second aspect of the relates to a method for implementing the method of one or more embodiments of the system, the system comprises a control unit and graphical user interface are coupled to each other. wherein the battery state-of-charge information and the current power may limit displayed via a graphical user interface, and can be input with each electric device of electric vehicle of electric power consumption related control command, and the control unit is configured to determine the power consumption of each electric device and according to control command execution control process”)
Birkenbell teaches a system to limit power on multiple electric devices in a vehicle based on the battery. However, Birkenbell does not teach a stay mode.
Plank teaches:
A method of controlling electric power usage of a vehicle having a stay mode comprising:
(Plank – Paragraph [0047] states “Camp Mode may comprise of such at least one computer-executable instruction which, before or after other instructions, may review and/or continuously monitor the state of the battery and/or other supplies of energy (e.g., gasoline, diesel, hydrogen etc.); based on the level of such energy supplies—typically at low levels—terminate Camp Mode, or at levels deemed sufficient, check and/or continuously monitor the external temperature and turn either the heating or the air conditioning system on—typically at external temperatures differing from levels deemed optimal inside the cabin of such vehicle—while typically at similar external temperatures Camp Mode may enable air circulation from between the cabin and the outside environment of such vehicles by instructing at least one electronically controlled fan (not shown here) to turn on…”)
Birkenbell and Plank are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling the power of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Birkenbell with Plank. It would have been obvious to combine a system to limit power on multiple electric devices in a vehicle based on the battery with a specific mode for using these devices while the vehicle is parked and the motor is off because this allows more functionality of the vehicle without wasting gas and putting other wear and tear on other parts of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 1.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to include a plurality of usage modes.
(Birkenbell – On page 2, it states “control unit for monitoring the energy consumption, and then adjust big current electric equipment according to the state of charge of the battery power consumption mode” On page 2, it further states “If the battery of the electric vehicle to realize low state of charge, the vehicle energy consumption from normal mode to optimizing energy consumption mode so as to be capable of using the residual energy as effectively as possible under the condition of low consumption, for example in order to reach the charging station.”)
Regarding claim 3,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 2.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein a user selects one of the plurality of usage modes.
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “in a second step S2, to set the power consumption mode of the vehicle according to the current state of charge of the battery. the mode can be set through a graphical user interface 6 or by automatically controlling unit 4 by a user.”)
Regarding claim 4,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 1.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein the usage modes comprise a custom mode created by a user.
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “In addition, graphical user interface 6 includes a control panel or input device which can be used for manual input and each electric device of electric vehicle of electric power consumption related control command. control command through the graphical user interface 6 is transmitted to the control device 4, the control device 4 correspondingly controlling each device of the vehicle 1. can be provided, the user, in other words generally is a driver of the associated vehicle, it can response independently set the obtained control command information, and instructing the control unit 4 independently controlling current power consumption mode based on the remaining energy reserve.” Note: The examiner interprets the selection of a plurality of devices for use depending on the situation as a custom mode for the vehicle based on the current battery.)
Regarding claim 5,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 4.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein the custom mode is a usage mode created by the user by selecting the electric devices desired to be operated.
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “In addition, graphical user interface 6 includes a control panel or input device which can be used for manual input and each electric device of electric vehicle of electric power consumption related control command. control command through the graphical user interface 6 is transmitted to the control device 4, the control device 4 correspondingly controlling each device of the vehicle 1. can be provided, the user, in other words generally is a driver of the associated vehicle, it can response independently set the obtained control command information, and instructing the control unit 4 independently controlling current power consumption mode based on the remaining energy reserve.”)
Regarding claim 6,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 5.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein the custom mode further is created by the user selecting setting information on operating statuses of the selected electric devices.
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “In addition, graphical user interface 6 includes a control panel or input device which can be used for manual input and each electric device of electric vehicle of electric power consumption related control command. control command through the graphical user interface 6 is transmitted to the control device 4, the control device 4 correspondingly controlling each device of the vehicle 1. can be provided, the user, in other words generally is a driver of the associated vehicle, it can response independently set the obtained control command information, and instructing the control unit 4 independently controlling current power consumption mode based on the remaining energy reserve.”)
Regarding claim 7,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 6.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein the custom mode further is created by storing the setting information in the controller.
(Birkenbell – On page 5, it states “can store the complete set, and using, for example, contact (similar to the radio transmitter station button) transfer complete set. Therefore, each user of the vehicle capable of calling out of each set by pressing the button, without having to repeatedly set each time.”)
Regarding claim 13,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 1.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein the electric devices are devices operated using the battery power.
(Birkenbell – On page 2, it states “control unit for monitoring the energy consumption, and then adjust big current electric equipment according to the state of charge of the battery power consumption mode.”)
Regarding claim 14,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 13.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein the electric devices comprise at least one of an air conditioner, a seat, an audio device, a video device, a lighting device, or a heating device.
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “the motor vehicle 8 is a large power electric device of another electric device (the large electric equipment is also described as large-current electric device) comprising an air conditioning system 9 and the heating system 1. motor vehicle 1 the other of the energy consumption device is an illumination device, a multimedia system, a blower, a seat/screen heater and so on.”)
Regarding claim 15,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 1.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein the power limit of each electric device comprises at least one of:
an air conditioner power limit configured to limit operating power of an air conditioner;
a converter power limit configured to limit operating power of electric devices configured to receive the battery power through a converter; or
a heating device power limit configured to limit operating power of a heating device.
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “In system 2, control unit 4 and graphical user interface 6 are coupled to each other. graphical user interface 6 is configured or programmed to display information about the battery 5 state of charge and the possibility of selecting electric device power limit. control unit 4 is configured to determine the power consumption of each device, the value of determining the transmission to the display of graphical user interface 6 according to the control command execution control program.” On page 4, it further states “the motor vehicle 8 is a large power electric device of another electric device (the large electric equipment is also described as large-current electric device) comprising an air conditioning system 9 and the heating system 1. motor vehicle 1 the other of the energy consumption device is an illumination device, a multimedia system, a blower, a seat/screen heater and so on.”)
Regarding claim 16,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 1.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein, in determining the integrated power limit, the controller determines the integrated power limit as a value obtained by subtracting a predetermined margin from the total operating power of the electric devices.
(Birkenbell – On page 3, it states “The second aspect of the relates to a method for implementing the method of one or more embodiments of the system, the system comprises a control unit and graphical user interface are coupled to each other. wherein the battery state-of-charge information and the current power may limit displayed via a graphical user interface, and can be input with each electric device of electric vehicle of electric power consumption related control command, and the control unit is configured to determine the power consumption of each electric device and according to control command execution control process” Note: The examiner interprets the use of each device being determined if it is available based on total power consumption as each device having a margin of electric power.)
Regarding claim 17,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 1.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein, in determining the power limit of each electric device, the controller:
determines an operating power of each electric device set to be operated in the selected usage mode based on the setting information of the operating status of each electric device.
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “In system 2, control unit 4 and graphical user interface 6 are coupled to each other. Graphical user interface 6 is configured or programmed to display information about the battery 5 state of charge and the possibility of selecting electric device power limit. control unit 4 is configured to determine the power consumption of each device, the value of determining the transmission to the display of graphical user interface 6 according to the control command execution control program.”)
Regarding claim 18,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 17.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein, in determining the power limit of each electric device, the controller:
determines the power limit of each electric device, which is the maximum available power of each electric device, by distributing the integrated power limit based on the determined operating power of each electric device.
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “In system 2, control unit 4 and graphical user interface 6 are coupled to each other. Graphical user interface 6 is configured or programmed to display information about the battery 5 state of charge and the possibility of selecting electric device power limit. control unit 4 is configured to determine the power consumption of each device, the value of determining the transmission to the display of graphical user interface 6 according to the control command execution control program.”)
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkenbell (CN 107264300 A) in view of Plank (US 20210309132 A1) and further in view of Peng (US 20210138957 A1).
Regarding claim 8,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 3.
However, Birkenbell and Plank do not teach the limitations of claim 8.
Peng teaches:
further comprising determining, by the controller, user profile information input or selected by the user.
(Peng – Paragraph [0107] states “Further, the controller/microprocessor 920 may associate a presentation of the information with a particular occupant, such as the driver, and store the association as a user profile in the memory/storage/cache 916. Upon determining that an occupant has an associated user profile indicating a preferred presentation of the information (e.g., based on output from at least one sensor 1300), the controller/microprocessor 920 may automatically switch to the presentation of the information indicated by the user profile. The vehicle 100 may include one or more biometric sensors (e.g., retina scanner, fingerprint scanner, etc.) to assist with identifying the occupant to select an associated user profile.” Note: The examiner interprets the sensor input as the input of user information.)
Birkenbell, Plank, and Peng are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Birkenbell and Plank with Peng. It would have been obvious to combine a system to limit power on multiple electric devices in a vehicle based on the battery having a specific mode for using these devices while the vehicle is parked and the motor is off with the use of a user profile because the system has a way to hold custom modes in memory per user. This allows for the system to be more efficient when the user wants to select from their list of custom modes.
Regarding claim 9,
Birkenbell, Plank and Peng teach the limitations of claim 8.
However, Birkenbell and Plank do not teach the limitations of claim 9.
Peng teaches:
wherein the controller determines the user from the input or selected user profile information.
(Peng – Paragraph [0107] states “Further, the controller/microprocessor 920 may associate a presentation of the information with a particular occupant, such as the driver, and store the association as a user profile in the memory/storage/cache 916. Upon determining that an occupant has an associated user profile indicating a preferred presentation of the information (e.g., based on output from at least one sensor 1300), the controller/microprocessor 920 may automatically switch to the presentation of the information indicated by the user profile. The vehicle 100 may include one or more biometric sensors (e.g., retina scanner, fingerprint scanner, etc.) to assist with identifying the occupant to select an associated user profile.” Note: The examiner interprets the sensor input as the input of user information.)
Birkenbell, Plank, and Peng are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Birkenbell and Plank with Peng. It would have been obvious to combine a system to limit power on multiple electric devices in a vehicle based on the battery having a specific mode for using these devices while the vehicle is parked and the motor is off with the use of a user profile because the system has a way to hold custom modes in memory per user. This allows for the system to be more efficient when the user wants to select from their list of custom modes.
Regarding claim 10,
Birkenbell, Plank and Peng teach the limitations of claim 9.
Birkenbell further teaches:
wherein the controller then displays information on usage modes available to the user determined by the controller.
(Birkenbell – On page 4, it states “In addition, graphical user interface 6 includes a control panel or input device which can be used for manual input and each electric device of electric vehicle of electric power consumption related control command. control command through the graphical user interface 6 is transmitted to the control device 4, the control device 4 correspondingly controlling each device of the vehicle 1. can be provided, the user, in other words generally is a driver of the associated vehicle, it can response independently set the obtained control command information, and instructing the control unit 4 independently controlling current power consumption mode based on the remaining energy reserve.”)
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkenbell (CN 107264300 A) in view of Plank (US 20210309132 A1) and further in view of Motoyama et al. (JP 6626282 B2).
Regarding claim 11,
Birkenbell and Plank teach the limitations of claim 1.
Birkenbell further teaches:
further comprising: displaying, by the control unit, information configured to enable selection or input of activation of the mode through the display,
(Birkenbell – On page 3, it states “The second aspect of the relates to a method for implementing the method of one or more embodiments of the system, the system comprises a control unit and graphical user interface are coupled to each other. wherein the battery state-of-charge information and the current power may limit displayed via a graphical user interface, and can be input with each electric device of electric vehicle of electric power consumption related control command, and the control unit is configured to determine the power consumption of each electric device and according to control command execution control process”)
Birkenbell teaches a system to limit power on multiple electric devices in a vehicle based on the battery. However, Birkenbell and Plank do not teach the limitation when the vehicle is stopped and is in the park (P) gear position.
Motoyama teaches:
further comprising: input of activation of the stay mode when the vehicle is stopped and is in a park (P) gear position.
(Motoyama – On page 3, it states “In the power supply mode, every time the push engine switch 10 is turned on while the select lever is set to the P range, for example, as shown by a solid line in FIG. 2, the power supply is turned OFF .fwdarw. ACC .fwdarw. power ON (IGN). The power is switched in order, and when the push engine switch 10 is further turned on, the power is turned off. Further, when the push engine switch 10 is turned on while the vehicle is stopped and the select lever is set to a range other than the P range, the power supply mode is switched to the ACC mode without being switched to the OFF mode as shown by a broken line in FIG. Is stopped.” On page 1, it states “When the push lever is pressed while the select lever is set to the P range and the brake pedal is not depressed, the power mode of the vehicle is changed from OFF mode to accessory (ACC) mode to ON ( (IGN) mode. Further, when the push engine switch is pressed with the select lever set to a range other than the P range, the power supply mode is switched from the ON (E / G RUN) mode to the ACC mode.”)
Birkenbell, Plank, and Motoyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Birkenbell and Plank with Motoyama. It would have been obvious to combine a system to limit power on multiple electric devices in a vehicle based on the battery having a specific mode for using these devices while the vehicle is parked and the motor is off with the vehicle changing modes while the vehicle is parked and off because this allows more functionality of the vehicle without wasting gas and putting other wear and tear on other parts of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 12,
Birkenbell, Plank, and Motoyama teach the limitations of claim 11.
However, Birkenbell and Plank do not teach the limitations of claim 12.
Motoyama further teaches:
further comprising: activating, by the control unit, the stay mode, when a user selects or inputs the activation of the stay mode through the input device.
(Motoyama – On page 3, it states “In the power supply mode, every time the push engine switch 10 is turned on while the select lever is set to the P range, for example, as shown by a solid line in FIG. 2, the power supply is turned OFF .fwdarw. ACC .fwdarw. power ON (IGN). The power is switched in order, and when the push engine switch 10 is further turned on, the power is turned off. Further, when the push engine switch 10 is turned on while the vehicle is stopped and the select lever is set to a range other than the P range, the power supply mode is switched to the ACC mode without being switched to the OFF mode as shown by a broken line in FIG. Is stopped.” On page 1, it states “When the push lever is pressed while the select lever is set to the P range and the brake pedal is not depressed, the power mode of the vehicle is changed from OFF mode to accessory (ACC) mode to ON ( (IGN) mode. Further, when the push engine switch is pressed with the select lever set to a range other than the P range, the power supply mode is switched from the ON (E / G RUN) mode to the ACC mode.”)
Birkenbell, Plank, and Motoyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Birkenbell and Plank with Motoyama. It would have been obvious to combine a system to limit power on multiple electric devices in a vehicle based on the battery having a specific mode for using these devices while the vehicle is parked and the motor is off with the vehicle changing modes while the vehicle is parked and off because this allows more functionality of the vehicle without wasting gas and putting other wear and tear on other parts of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights