This would enable multiple braking modes based on real-time battery parameters (e.g., state of charge, temperature, and fault conditions) rather than relying solely on vehicle speed. The Assistant Controller of Patents (Controller) rejected the application on grounds of inadequate disclosure and lack of inventive steps. 

Although TVS responded to the First Examination Report (FER) and appeared for two hearings, the Controller found these replies as inadequate under Section 10(4), and 2(1) (ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. Section 10(4) requires that a complete specification fully describe the invention and disclose the best method for performing it, while Section 2(1) (ja) mandates an inventive step that is not obvious over prior art. 

According to the Controller, TVS’s specification did not adequately explain how key vehicle parameters would be measured or managed, thus failing to provide a fully enabling disclosure for a Person Skilled in the Art. The Controller further concluded that prior art (documents D1 and D2) already taught regenerative braking, rendering the invention non-inventive. TVS countered that its invention differs by allowing a user to select a regenerative braking mode based on real-time battery data, whereas D1 only disclosed a single regenerative mode plus reverse, and D2 relied on pedaling speed in a power- assisted bicycle. 

While the Madras High Court observed that there were gaps in TVS’s disclosure, it observed that the IPO had failed to consider whether the user-selectable regenerative mode could form an inventive step. The Court ultimately set aside the Controller’s rejection and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different patent officer.