DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 19/469,817 filed on 09/26/2025, in which claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2305901.7, filed on 04/21/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 09/26/2025 has/have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-14 is/ are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “claim 1 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 3 recites “claim 2 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 2, wherein”.
Claim 4 recites “claim 1 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 5 recites “claim 1 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 6 recites “claim 1 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 7 recites “claim 6 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 6, wherein”.
Claim 8 recites “claim 1 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 9 recites “claim 1 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 10 recites “claim 1 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 11 recites “claim 1 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 12 recites “claim 1 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 13 recites “claim 12 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 12, wherein”.
Claim 14 recites “claim 1 wherein” in line 1. It should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC §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, 2, 4-10, 14 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by PG Pub. # US-2019/0077344-A1 by Brunais et al. (hereinafter “Brunais”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 09/26/2025
As per claim 1, Brunais discloses a method of operating an electric work vehicle in a recovery mode, the electric work vehicle comprising a traction motor and a battery (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 1, 2 & 4A-B, and ¶¶19-21 & 36-37, discloses electrified vehicle 12, i.e., the pickup truck of Fig(s). 4A-B, motor 36, and battery 50, wherein Brunais’s method includes charging the primary power source with the auxiliary power source and/or operating the electrified vehicle in a reduced power mode with the auxiliary power source) the method comprising:
initiating the recovery mode via a user interface (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 2 [reproduced here for convenience], 4A-B, 6, 7 & 8, and ¶¶54-56, 65, 68, 69 & 77, discloses the operator of the electrified vehicle 12 configures the mode of operation, including the reduced power mode where the electrified vehicle 12 is powered by the auxiliary power source 64, with use of the cluster display 72);
PNG
media_image1.png
736
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brunais’s Fig. 2 (emphasis added)
disabling a charging interlock, wherein when enabled the charging interlock is configured to prevent use of the traction motor of the electric work vehicle during charging (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 1, 2 & 4A-B, and ¶¶38-40 & 47-49, discloses the generator 16 alternatively functions as a motor to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy, thereby outputting torque to a shaft 26 connected to the carrier assembly 24 of the power transfer unit 18, wherein the motor 36 and the generator 16 are part of a regenerative braking system in which both the motor 36 and the generator 16 can be employed as motors to output torque. Brunais further discloses the auxiliary power source 64 is a power source separate from the primary power source 62 that can be utilized to selectively supply auxiliary power to an electrified vehicle, wherein the auxiliary power source 64 supplies power in place of the primary power source 62 [i.e., this is an implicit feature of the system of Brunais as the purpose of the interlock is to inhibit operation of the electric motor when the vehicle is connected to the auxiliary power source, such interlock must be implicitly disabled in the system of Brunais, because it uses the auxiliary power source for propelling the vehicle]);
setting the electric work vehicle to a low power consumption mode, wherein the traction motor of the electric work vehicle is operable in the low power consumption mode (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 8, and ¶¶65-67, discloses the operator of the electrified vehicle 12 sets the reduced power mode, a.k.a. a limp-home mode in which the auxiliary power source 64, 164 supplies just enough power to drive the vehicle drive wheels 30 at a relatively low speed, with use of the cluster display 72);
PNG
media_image2.png
324
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brunais’s Fig. 4B (emphasis added)
connecting the battery of the electric work vehicle to a mobile power supply such that the mobile power supply provides power to the electric work vehicle (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 2, 4B [reproduced here for convenience] & 8, and ¶¶51, 59, 67, 72, 73 & 77, discloses the auxiliary power source 64 is connected to power supply system of the electrified vehicle 12 with the electrical connector 68 and is used to operate the electrified vehicle 12); and
while the electric work vehicle is connected to the mobile power supply:
(a) moving the electric work vehicle using the traction motor; and
(b) moving the mobile power supply (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 2, 4B & 8, and ¶¶51, 59, 67, 72, 73 & 77, discloses the auxiliary power source 64 is connected to power supply system of the electrified vehicle 12 with the electrical connector 68 and is used to operate the electrified vehicle 12, wherein the auxiliary power source 64 is mounted to a trailer hitch 84 of the electrified vehicle and moves with it).
As per claim 2, Brunais discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Brunais further discloses wherein the electric work vehicle further comprises a work tool motor configured to actuate a work tool, wherein the work tool motor is operable in the low power consumption mode (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 7 & 8, and ¶¶55, 68-71 & 74-76, discloses accessory systems/loads to be powered/placed on the auxiliary power source are selected by the vehicle operator; wherein a load budged for these accessory systems is selected; and load placed on the auxiliary power source 64 may be reduced. Brunais further discloses the accessory system may be one of a climate control system (for heating and cooling the passenger compartment), a lighting system, a consumer device powering station, an electrically driven system, or any other load of the electrified vehicle 12).
As per claim 4, Brunais discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Brunais further discloses wherein the low power consumption mode comprises a low speed mode of the traction motor (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 8, and ¶¶65-67 & 77, discloses the operator of the electrified vehicle 12 sets the reduced power mode, a.k.a. a limp-home mode in which the auxiliary power source 64, 164 supplies just enough power to drive the vehicle drive wheels 30 at a relatively low speed, e.g., no greater than 5 miles per hours, with use of the cluster display 72).
As per claim 5, Brunais discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Brunais further discloses wherein the low power consumption mode comprises an idle mode of one or more work tools of the electric work vehicle (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 7 & 8, and ¶¶55, 68-71 & 74-76, discloses accessory systems/loads to be powered/placed on the auxiliary power source are selected by the vehicle operator; a load budged for these accessory systems is selected; and load placed on the auxiliary power source 64 may be reduced [i.e., an idle mode of one or more work tools of the electric work vehicle]).
As per claim 6, Brunais discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Brunais further discloses wherein the low power consumption mode comprises a low power mode of an ancillary electrical load or a standby mode of an ancillary electrical load (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 7 & 8, and ¶¶55, 68-71 & 74-76, discloses accessory systems/loads to be powered/placed on the auxiliary power source are selected by the vehicle operator; a load budged for these accessory systems is selected; and load placed on the auxiliary power source 64 may be reduced).
As per claim 7, Brunais discloses the method of claim 6, accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated. Brunais further discloses wherein the ancillary electrical load comprises one or more of:
lights;
a cab heater;
a cab HVAC system;
a cooling fan; and
a cooling pump (Brunais, in at least ¶65, discloses the accessory system may be one of a climate control system (for heating and cooling the passenger compartment), a lighting system, a consumer device powering station, an electrically driven system, or any other load of the electrified vehicle 12).
As per claim 8, Brunais discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Brunais further discloses wherein the user interface comprises one of:
a display in a cab of the electric work vehicle;
a display outside of the cab of the electric work vehicle; and
a mobile device configured to wirelessly communicate with the electric work vehicle (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 2, and ¶¶13 & 54-56, discloses cluster display 72, which includes at least a display unit and at least one input device, wherein the cluster display 72 is located at a second location 74 within a passenger compartment of the electrified vehicle that is a different location from the first location 70 of the electrical connector 68).
As per claim 9, Brunais discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Brunais further discloses wherein the mobile power supply comprises one or more of:
a generator; and
one or more batteries (Brunais, in at least Fig. 5, and ¶50, discloses the auxiliary power source 64 is a portable, gasoline driven generator).
As per claim 10, Brunais discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Brunais further discloses wherein the electric work vehicle in the recovery mode is configured to carry or tow the mobile power supply (Brunais, in at least Fig. 4B, and ¶59, discloses the auxiliary power source 64 is mounted to a trailer hitch 84 of the electrified vehicle and moves with it).
As per claim 14, Brunais discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Brunais further discloses wherein the power provided by the mobile power supply to the electric work vehicle is at or below a power limit (Brunais, in at least Fig(s). 7 & 8, and ¶55, 67, 69-71 & 74-76, discloses the power budget [i.e., power limit] delivered by the auxiliary power source is controlled, wherein loads to be connected to the auxiliary power source 64 are selected).
As per claim 15, the claim is directed towards a device that recites performing similar steps of the method of claim 1. The cited portions of Brunais used in the rejection of claim 1 disclose the same steps performed by the device of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC §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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Brunais (US-2019/0077344-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2022/0371462-A1 to Isaksson (hereinafter “Isaksson”)
As per claim 3, Brunais discloses the method of claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated. While Brunais disclose accessory systems/loads to be powered/placed on the auxiliary power source are selected by the vehicle operator, wherein the accessory system may be any other load of the electrified vehicle 12, it does not explicitly recite wherein the work tool motor comprises a hydraulic motor.
Isaksson, in at least Fig. 4, and ¶¶65 that is/was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, teaches wherein the work tool motor comprises a hydraulic motor (Isaksson, in at least Fig. 4, and ¶¶65, teaches a portable rescue power bank for an electric vehicle, wherein the low-voltage battery 7 is configured for powering at least one load 30 related to a vehicle safety function, such as an electrical steering actuator, or electrically actuated friction brakes, or an electrical motor powering a hydraulic pump for a hydraulic steering system and/or a hydraulic braking system).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brunais in view of Isaksson with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – electric vehicle systems - and the combination would provide handling and solving an electrical vehicle breakdown, in particular in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness (see at least Isaksson’s ¶4).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Brunais (US-2019/0077344-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2022/0379756-A1 to Luby et al. (hereinafter “Luby”), which are both found in the IDS submitted on 09/26/2025
As per claim 11, Brunais discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Brunais is silent on claim 1 limitations. However
Luby, in at least Fig(s). 3, 11 & 12, and ¶¶35-36, 43-46 & 58-59 that is/was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, teaches a support electric work vehicle is configured to carry the mobile power supply, wherein the support electric work vehicle is not in the recovery mode (Luby, in at least Fig(s). 3, 11 & 12, and ¶¶35-36, 43-46 & 58-59, teaches service vehicle 100, service vehicle ESS 130, electrical cable and connector 310,wherein a support electrical work vehicle can be connected to various electrical work vehicles to power them and enable simultaneous operation and travelling).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brunais in view of Luby with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – electric vehicle systems - and the combination would provide a more cost-efficient design such that no longer a need for electrical charging capacity at the work site since the service vehicle now provides the electrical energy to the work site in parallel with transporting road construction material to and/or from the work site (see at least Luby’s ¶7).
As per claim 12, Brunais discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Brunais is silent on claim 1 limitations. However
Luby, in at least Fig(s). 3, 11 & 12, and ¶¶35-36, 43-46 & 58-59 that is/was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, teaches the mobile power supply comprises a recovery electric work vehicle (Luby, in at least Fig(s). 3, 11 & 12, and ¶¶35-36, 43-46 & 58-59, teaches service vehicle 100, service vehicle ESS 130, electrical cable and connector 310,wherein a support electrical work vehicle can be connected to various electrical work vehicles to power them and enable simultaneous operation and travelling).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brunais in view of Luby with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – electric vehicle systems - and the combination would provide a more cost-efficient design such that no longer a need for electrical charging capacity at the work site since the service vehicle now provides the electrical energy to the work site in parallel with transporting road construction material to and/or from the work site (see at least Luby’s ¶7).
As per claim 13, Brunais discloses the method of claim 12, accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 above is incorporated. Brunais is silent on claim 1 limitations. However
Luby, in at least Fig(s). 3, 11 & 12, and ¶¶35-36, 43-46 & 58-59 that is/was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, teaches the power provided by the mobile power supply to the electric work vehicle is DC power (Luby, in at least Fig(s). 3, 11 & 12, and ¶¶30, 35-36, 43-46 & 58-59, teaches the electrical storage system (ESS) 130 arranged to carry electrical energy, wherein this electrical storage system normally comprises a battery [i.e., DC power] and may also be complemented by a fuel cell stack. further discloses the electric connection between service vehicle 100 and road construction machine is preferably a direct current (DC) connection which essentially connects the ESS 130 to the electric system 210 of the road construction machine).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brunais in view of Luby with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – electric vehicle systems - and the combination would provide a more cost-efficient design such that no longer a need for electrical charging capacity at the work site since the service vehicle now provides the electrical energy to the work site in parallel with transporting road construction material to and/or from the work site (see at least Luby’s ¶7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. 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.uspto.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 a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights