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 priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent, EP24208267.5, filed on 10/23/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: “processing circuitry configured to” in claims 1-9. Examiner suggests taking out configured so it says processing circuitry to:….
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Yes, with respect to claims 1-20, which recite a method, system or medium that include at least one step. The system/method is therefore directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture. The abstract states that this is “a computer system for controlling a power usage of a traction electric machine of a vehicle.”
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 11 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer system for controlling a power usage of a traction electric machine of a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: predict a power profile for an upcoming route section; determine a thermal buffer of a component or subsystem of the vehicle that is available before a thermal limit is reached, the component or subsystem is associated with a usage restriction due to increased power usage of a driveline of the vehicle, determine a constant power level of the traction electric machine for the upcoming route section based on the thermal buffer and the predicted power profile for the upcoming route section that allows an increase in temperature of the component or subsystem without exceeding the thermal limit while travelling through the upcoming route section, and provide an output message indicating the constant power level.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute mathematical concepts to determine many of the limitations, including using mathematical relationships. Formulas or equations and calculations. Also shows organizing human activity – concepts performed in the human mind (including observations, evaluation and judgment opinions). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The computing components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner further submits that the limitations are an insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from the sensors and/or from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the identifying and estimating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “provide an output message ...” the examiner submits that the limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The limitation of “provide an output message” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities is conventional data receiving. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7. 10, 12- 16, and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7. 10, 12- 16, and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Therefore, claims 1- 7, 11-16 and 19-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Examiner suggests moving and rewriting into a more active step the limitations of Claims 8 and/or 9 into the independent claims to overcome the 101 rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberts, et al. [US20240166087, now Alberts], with Nordholm et al. [US20230020541, now Nordholm].
Note: Alberts discloses the limitations in a broad manner and was used as the primary reference in the International search report for the EP parent application. Nordholm more specifically, teaches a majority of the limitations.
Claim 1
Alberts discloses a computer system for controlling a power usage of a traction electric machine of a vehicle [see at least Alberts, Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0046-0048 (discusses the heat management system which is similar in concept to the limitations)] the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
predict a power profile for an upcoming route section [see at least Alberts, Abstract (“profile); Fig. 3; ¶ 0068-0070 and 0072-0073 (discusses predicted profiles and predicted temperature profiles)];
determine a thermal buffer of a component or subsystem of the vehicle that is available before a thermal limit is reached, the component or subsystem is associated with a usage restriction due to increased power usage of a driveline of the vehicle [see at least Alberts, Fig. 2 (H1) and Fig. 2 (H2); ¶ 0048 - 0052 (Figures and paragraphs discuss profiles)],
determine a constant power level of the traction electric machine for the upcoming route section based on the thermal buffer and the predicted power profile for the upcoming route section that allows an increase in temperature of the component or subsystem without exceeding the thermal limit while travelling through the upcoming route section [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0072-0043; 0082-0083 (together show the technique of predicted profiles)], and
provide an output message indicating the constant power level [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0032; 0090 (shows output data)].
Nordholm more specifically teaches these limitations [see at least Nordholm, Abstract (“thermal buffer of a thermal system of a vehicle, the thermal system being a rechargeable energy storage system, RESS, and/or an energy transformation system comprising fuel cells, the thermal buffer having an operating window defined by the preferred operating temperature of the thermal buffer.”); ¶ 0012-0013 (discusses “conditioning the thermal buffer in response to the predictive power utilization over time such that the thermal buffer is operating within the operating window… performed in response to the predictive power utilization over such time span”); 0033 (“the predictive power utilization of the thermal buffer is predicted in response to a scheduled route of the vehicle comprising scheduled auxiliary actions of performing work during at least a portion of the scheduled route.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the heat management system of Alberts, with the more specific thermal and thermal profile technique and system of Nordholm. Providing a more effective and efficient (Nordholm, ¶ 0019 – 0020; 0023) technique for controlling power usage.
Claim 2
Alberts and Nordholm disclose/teach the system of Claim 1.
Alberts further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire a thermal model of the component or subsystem of the vehicle that associates power usage of the traction electric machine with thermal increase of the component or subsystem, use the thermal model to determine the constant power level [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0026; 0028; 0032 (all disclose modeling); 0082-0083 (indicates prediction and hysteresis)].
Nordhold also teaches the concept of these limitations [see at least Nordholm, ¶ 0035 (indicates a mathematical technique)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the heat management system of Alberts, with the more specific thermal and thermal profile technique and system of Nordholm. Providing a more effective and efficient (Nordholm, ¶ 0019 – 0020; 0023) technique for controlling power usage.
Claim 3
Alberts and Nordholm disclose/teach the system of Claim 1.
Alberts further discloses the thermal limit being a first thermal limit, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the constant power level such that a predetermined second thermal limit lower than the first thermal limit is reached at the end of the route section [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0072; 0113 (both discuss the calculations using thermo modules”)].
Nordholm also teaches these limitations [see at least Nordholm, ¶ 0012; 0035 (both indicate predicted power utilization over time and use of a modal).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the heat management system of Alberts, with the more specific thermal and thermal profile technique and system of Nordholm. Providing a more effective and efficient (Nordholm, ¶ 0019 – 0020; 0023) technique for controlling power usage.
Claim 4
Alberts and Nordholm disclose/teach the system of Claim 1.
Alberts further discloses determine the constant power level such that the thermal limit is reached at or near the end of the route section [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0072; 0113].
Nordholm more specifically teaches this limitation [see at least Nordholm, ¶ 0033-0065 (discusses the scheduled route and the relationship to the predicted route and the utilization of the thermal buffer)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the heat management system of Alberts, with the more specific thermal and thermal profile technique and system of Nordholm. Providing a more effective and efficient (Nordholm, ¶ 0019 – 0020; 0023) technique for controlling power usage.
Claim 5
Alberts and Nordholm disclose/teach the system of Claim 1.
Alberts further discloses receive topography data of the upcoming route section, or multiple consecutive upcoming route sections having different slopes, wherein a constant power level of the traction electric machine is determined for each of the upcoming route sections [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0073 (shows routes and route attributes), 0082-0083 (discusses prediction)].
Nordholm more specifically teaches this limitation [see at least Nordholm, ¶ 0079 (indicates planned or scheduled, as well as predicted routes)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the heat management system of Alberts, with the more specific thermal and thermal profile technique and system of Nordholm. Providing a more effective and efficient (Nordholm, ¶ 0019 – 0020; 0023) technique for controlling power usage.
Claim 6
Alberts and Nordholm disclose/teach the system of Claim 1.
Alberts further discloses set a maximum power limit for the vehicle based on the output message [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0072 (shows calculations for thresholds); 0113 (more on threshold calculations)].
Nordholm more specifically teaches this limitation [see at least Nordholm, ¶ 0038 (“a maximum or critical upper temperature limit of the thermal buffer is provided, the maximum or critical upper temperature limit”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the heat management system of Alberts, with the more specific thermal and thermal profile technique and system of Nordholm. Providing a more effective and efficient (Nordholm, ¶ 0019 – 0020; 0023) technique for controlling power usage.
Claim 8
Alberts and Nordholm disclose/teach the system of Claim 1.
Alberts further discloses control the traction electric machine to operate at or below the constant power level throughout at least a majority of the upcoming route section [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0072; 0082-0083].
Nordholm more specifically teaches this limitation [see at least Nordholm, ¶ 0043; 0049-0050; 0052; 0056 (all discuss the use of a control unit); 0072 (Fig. 3)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the heat management system of Alberts, with the more specific thermal and thermal profile technique and system of Nordholm. Providing a more effective and efficient (Nordholm, ¶ 0019 – 0020; 0023) technique for controlling power usage.
Claim 9
Alberts and Nordholm disclose/teach the system of Claim 1.
Alberts further discloses control the traction electric machine to operate at or below the constant power level throughout the upcoming route section [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0072; 0082-0083.
Nordholm more specifically teaches this limitation [see at least Nordholm, ¶ 0043; 0049-0050; 0052; 0056 (all discuss the use of a control unit); 0072 (Fig. 3)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the heat management system of Alberts, with the more specific thermal and thermal profile technique and system of Nordholm. Providing a more effective and efficient (Nordholm, ¶ 0019 – 0020; 0023) technique for controlling power usage.
Claim 10
Claim 10 has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 10 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
For clarity, Alberts discloses a computer system [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0048 (“computer”). Nordholm also teaches a computer [see at least Nordholm, ¶ 0001].
Claim 11
Claim 11 has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 11 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 12
Claim 12 has similar limitations to claim 2, therefore claim 12 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 13
Claim 133 has similar limitations to claim 3, therefore claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as claim3.
Claim 14
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 4, therefore claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 15
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 5, therefore claim 15 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 16
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 6, therefore claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 16
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 6, therefore claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 17
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 8, therefore claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 18
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 9, therefore claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 9.
Claim 19
Claim 19 has similar limitations to claims 1 and 11, therefore claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale as claims 1 and 11.
For clarity Alberts further discloses Program product [see at least Alberts, ¶ 0048].
Claim 20
Claim 20 has similar limitations to claims 1 and 11, therefore claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale as claims 1 and 11.
For clarity Albert does not disclose a non-transitory medium but does suggest it, Nordholm teaches a readable medium [see at least Nordholm, ¶ 0001; 0065].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberts, et al. [US20240166087, now Alberts], with Nordholm et al. [US20230020541, now Nordholm], further with Langenderfer et al. [US20210394644, now Langend].
Claim 7
Alberts and Nordholm disclose/teach the system of Claim 1.
Neither Alberts or Nordholm discloses/teaches but Langend teaches provide a message to a user interface to inform an operator of constant power level available for the upcoming route section [see at least Langend, ¶ 0090 (“the results of the cooling operation, such as operation errors or comparisons of temperatures, can be displayed on a dash board of electric vehicle 102. In another example, the results of the cooling operation including operational parameters, such as temperature values, can be transmitted to controller 118 (e.g., an engine control unit). Other suitable arrangements are also contemplated to suit the application.”].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the heat management system of Alberts, with the more specific thermal and thermal profile technique and system of Nordholm, further with the performing a predicted cooling operation of Langend. Providing a more effective and efficient (Nordholm, ¶ 0019 – 0020; 0023: Langend, ¶ 0005) technique for controlling power usage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gehring et al. [US 20150066236]
Abstract: A method for optimizing a power requirement of a motor vehicle that includes a speed control system for a drive unit and a temperature control system for a cooling circuit of the drive unit.
[0028] “ making use of a thermal buffer”
Fuchs et al. [DE102019134614]
Abstract: The invention relates to a method for predictive temperature control of an electrically powered motor vehicle (1), comprising the steps of: providing data which characterize a power requirement of the motor vehicle (1) along a route (s) still ahead of the motor vehicle (1); Dividing the route (s) in front of the motor vehicle (1) into load sections (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5) of different categories with regard to the line requirement on the basis of the data provided; Controlling a temperature control device (4) of the motor vehicle (1) when driving the route (s), so that a vehicle area of the motor vehicle (1) when driving on at least one of the load sections (B1), which is followed by a load section (B2) with a lower power requirement, with the formation of an excess of heat (7) exceeds its specified operating temperature range (8), which is only reduced when driving on the subsequent load section (B2) with return to the operating temperature range (8), and / or when driving at least one of the load sections (B4), which is followed by a load section (B5) with a higher power requirement, a temperature buffer (9) for the subsequent load section (B5) is created by cooling the vehicle area below its operating temperature range (8) when driving on this load section (B4). The invention also relates to a control device (5) for an electrically driven motor vehicle (1) for carrying out such a method and a motor vehicle with such a control device (5).
A Styler, G. Podnar, P. Dille, M. Duescher, C. Bartley and I. Nourbakhsh, "Active management of a heterogeneous energy store for electric vehicles," 2011 IEEE Forum on Integrated and Sustainable Transportation Systems, Vienna, Austria, 2011, pp. 20-25.
A. Khalatbarisoltani, H. Zhou, X. Tang, M. Kandidayeni, L. Boulon and X. Hu, "Energy Management Strategies for Fuel Cell Vehicles: A Comprehensive Review of the Latest Progress in Modeling, Strategies, and Future Prospects," in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 14-32, Jan. 2024
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The Fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
