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 the Claims
In the communication filed on 07/28/2025 claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, and 14-25 are pending. Claims 21-25 are new. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 15 are amended. Claims 4, 6, 10, 12-13 are cancelled. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent.
Response to Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 05/27/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New Grounds of Rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in pages 5-7 of the Appeal Brief dated 04/06/2026 that Bharmal and O’Hara do not teach the disclosed limitations. The applicant specifically argues that O’Hara is directed to a “storage mode” which is distinct from a “normal operating mode”, which is “used for periods of normal vehicles usages”. Applicant argues that O’Hara fails to disclose the limitations because it is directed towards a “storage mode”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
O’Hara is relied upon by the Examiner to teach “a capacity-lowering zone for lithium-ion batteries” as cited in page 18 of the Office Action dated 11/07/2025. Although the reference discusses the capacity-lowering zone in connection with a standby mode, that does not limit the teaching to standby operation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the capacity-lowering zone applies to lithium-ion battery management generally, not just during standby. Therefore, the relevant teaching is the use of the capacity-lowering zone for the lithium-ion battery, rather than the particular operating mode in which it is described.
Applicant argues in pages 8-9 of the Appeal Brief dated 04/06/2026 that claim 1 improperly relies on inherency. The examiner in the rejection below does not rely on Nigel for citation purposes and thus this argument is moot.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The drawing objections, the specification objections, and the claim objection remain and are presented below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in Fig. 1 should be provided with descriptive text labels.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: step 322 in Fig. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 is missing details. Applicant is advised to submit replacement sheets similar to the level of details shown in the applicant’s remarks dated 07/28/2025 (included here below). Please consider that drawings are printed in black and white.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
429
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: additional amendments to the specification would be required in response to the amendments made to address the drawing objections. Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). The Examiner points that the Applicant in ¶ [26] of the specification defines “a capacity-lowering zone” as “a capacity-lowering range, region, window, or zone 208”. However, the Applicant states that “a predefined state-of-charge range 208” corresponds to a state-of-charge range as seen in the amended Fig. 2 of 12/17/2024 and in the amended specification in ¶’s [24-26]. The specification is not clear in making a clear differentiation between “a capacity-lowering range” and “a predefined state-of-charge range.” The Examiner points to the discrepancies between Fig. 2 and ¶ [26]. The second sentence of ¶ [26] matches the “capacity-lowering zone” of Fig. 2 however the third sentence of ¶ [26] does not. Furthermore, in order to advance prosecution, “a capacity-lowering range” will be interpreted as a range/region/window/zone corresponding to the y-axis of Fig. 2. However, the Applicant is advised to correct discrepancies between the capacity-lowering range and the SOC range in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 replace “13” with --11--. For examination purposes this claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 11 however appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In line 1 replace “13” with --11--. For examination purposes this claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 11 however appropriate correction is required. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bharmal (USPGPN 20230256852).
With respect to independent claim 1, Bharmal teaches a power system for a vehicle comprising a traction battery (Fig. 1, vehicle charging system 100 and electric vehicle 102 with a battery (not shown in the drawings), see ¶ [26]).
Bharmal teaches a controller programmed to command charging of the traction battery to a target state-of-charge at a future predefined time (Figs. 1-5, electronic controller 104 commands charging of the electric vehicle according to a future charging schedule, see ¶ [26]. The schedule generating method 300 of Fig. 3, the example cost graph 400 of Fig. 4, and the charging method 500 of Fig. 5 are executed/selected by the controller 104, see ¶’s [27, 34-35]. Fig. 5, teaches the controller commands charging of the battery to a maximum target SOC based on a future schedule established with 300 and 400, see ¶ [35]).
Bharmal teaches responsive to a plug-in event and a current state-of-charge being outside a predefined state-of-charge range, the controller is configured to initiate charging of the traction battery at the future predefined time to the target state-of-charge (Predefined SOC range is 0%-Minimum SOC, clear from abstract, 302[Fig. 3] & 502[Fig. 5], and para's [03-05, 27, 28, 36, 37, esp. 28] that by saying whether the minimum SOC has been reached [noted that this value is the value set such that "the minimum target state of charge of a battery for the electric vehicle 102 to cover expected vehicle usage" the vehicle can travel the expected future use without complications], it means that the battery is charged to this value before the schedule occurs, so if the battery is greater than this predefined SOC range, then the schedule is followed as claimed. ¶ [21] teaches an I/O interface 206 of controller 104 is the connection point for system 100. ¶ [28] teaches when I/O 206 is connected [i.e., plug-in event] then in step 302 a minimum target SOC and a maximum target SOC are defined [i.e., SOCmin-target < SOCpredefined-range < SOCmax-target]. ¶ [29] teaches a current SOC is determined in step 304. ¶ [30] teaches in step 306 the peak and off-peak hours are determined and ¶ [33] teaches in step 310 a charging schedule is created taking into consideration the peak/off-peak hours and the min/max target SOCs [i.e., future predefined time]. ¶’s [27-40, esp. 35, 36] teach when the current SOC is lower than the minimum target SOC in step 502 [i.e., being outside the predefined SOC range] then the controller begins charging the EV battery based on the charging schedule in step 504 [i.e., at the future predefined time (such as off-peak)] and if a maximum target SOC is reached in step 506, then the charger stops in step 510 [i.e., to the target SOC]. Where ¶’s [35, 36] teaches Fig. 5 is a charging algorithm and 502 of Fig. 5 is the part of the charging algorithm in which the minimum target SOC has been reached, i.e. it had to have been charged to that level for it to have been reached, i.e. it was outside of the predetermined SOC range).
Bharmal teaches responsive to the plug-in event and the current state-of-charge being within the predefined state-of-charge range, the controller is configured to initiate charging of the traction battery before the future predefined time for as long as the current state-of-charge falls within the predefined state-of charge range and the controller is configured to initiate charging of the traction battery to the target state-of-charge at the future predefined time after the charging to bring the current state-of-charge outside of the predefined state-of-charge range, the predefined state-of-charge range being less than 99% (As noted above, since the value is below the minimum target SOC, it is within the range, and thus charged until out of the range, then the schedule is followed. ¶’s [27-40, esp. 39] teach when the current SOC is greater than the minimum target SOC in step 502 but below the maximum target SOC in step 506 [i.e., being within the predefined SOC range] then a charging time may be identified such as during a partial peak timeframe in ¶ [39] [i.e., before the future predefined time] and charging is done then. Steps 504, 506, and 508 repeat for as long as the current SOC falls within the predefined SOC range. ¶’s [27-40, esp. 38, 40] teach the charging of the EV’s battery is done based on the charging schedule in step 504 [i.e., at the future predefined time] and when the maximum target SOC is reached in step 506, the charging is stopped in step 510 [i.e., the current SOC is outside the predefined SOC range]).
With respect to claim 2, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Bharmal teaches wherein the target state-of-charge is 100% (In ¶’s [02, 40], the controller charges the battery to a full charge at the maximum target SOC. One of ordinary skill understands a full charge is 100%) and the future predefined time is a time when electricity is valued at an off-peak rate (Fig. 4, 402-1 and 402-2 are off-peak hours with low electricity cost rates, see ¶ [34]).
With respect to claim 3, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Bharmal teaches wherein the future predefined time is between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM (Fig. 4, 402-1 and 402-2 are off-peak hours between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am, see ¶ [34]).
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 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharmal (USPGPN 20230256852), and further in view of Kishiyama et al. (USPGPN 20110156652).
With respect to claim 5, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Bharmal teaches the predefined state-of-charge range (¶ [28] teaches in step 302 of Fig. 3 a minimum target SOC and a maximum target SOC are defined [i.e., predefined SOC range]).
However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is derived from a state-of-charge versus capacity curve.
Kishiyama teaches wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is derived from a state-of-charge versus capacity curve (¶’s [52-56, 58, and 66] teaches when determining a range SOC the losses in capacity is accounted for. Furthermore, ¶ [54] specifically states that the plots for capacity in Fig. 4 (and Fig. 5) are a function of the variable SOC window/range. Additionally, in step 715 of Fig. 7 a SOC window/range is selected based on factors including capacity, see ¶ [66]).
Defining the state of charge (SOC) from a SOC versus capacity curve is essential to ensure maximum battery lifespan and establish accurate range estimation. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Bharmal by adding the features disclosed by Kishiyama to provide the state-of-charge range defined from a state-of-charge versus capacity curve. The advantage of this modification being improving battery pack life an automobile (in ¶ [02] of Kishiyama), by tying the range of the EV to the SOC and capacity we can improve the convenience for the user (in ¶ [17] of Kishiyama), decreasing battery pack cell capacity as a function of age (in ¶ [19] of Kishiyama), and using the predefined SOC range to improve safety of a degraded battery from failure (in ¶’s [50-53] of Kishiyama).
With respect to claim 7, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach the predefined state-of-charge range is 60 to 90%.
Bharmal discloses the claimed invention except for the predefined state-of-charge range is 60 to 90%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predefined state-of-charge range as being between 60 to 90%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 8, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Further, Bharmal teaches wherein the controller is programmed to command charging of the traction battery such that responsive to a plug-in event and the current state-of-charge being less than the predefined state-of-charge range, the controller is configured to initiate charging to and discontinues charging at a threshold state-of-charge less than the predefined state-of-charge range and delays charging from the threshold state-of-charge to the target state-of-charge until the future predefined time (¶’s [27-40, esp. 37, 39] teach a charging command is initiated by controller 104 to charge a current SOC to a minimum target SOC [i.e., threshold SOC] in step 504 and in step 508 identifies a suitable charging time [i.e., discontinues charging until a future time]. This occurs when the current SOC is less than the minimum target SOC which is less than the SOC min/max range [i.e., current SOC < threshold SOC < predefined SOC range]).
Claims 9, 11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharmal (USPGPN 20230256852) and further in view of O’Hara et al. (USPGPN 20180257492).
With respect to independent claim 9, Bharmal teaches a vehicle comprising an electric machine (Fig. 1, electric vehicle 102 and other vehicle systems 110 includes devices for the operation of the electric vehicle, see ¶ [26]).
Bharmal teaches an electrochemical cell configured to power the electric machine (¶ [26], electric vehicle 102 has a battery (not shown in the drawings). ¶ [28] teaches the battery is used for vehicle usage [i.e., the battery is used to power the electric motor]).
Bharmal teaches a power system configured to charge the electrochemical cell during a plug-in event (¶’s [35-36] teach when I/O 206 is connected [i.e., plug-in event] then process 500 of Fig. 5 is initiated using vehicle charging system 100 [i.e., power system configured to charge the electrochemical cell]).
Bharmal teaches such that responsive to a state-of-charge not being in a zone/range, the power system delays charging of the electrochemical cell from an immediate time to at a future time (Predefined SOC range is 0%-Minimum SOC, clear from abstract, 302[Fig. 3] & 502[Fig. 5], and para's [03-05, 27, 28, 36, 37, esp. 28] that by saying whether the minimum SOC has been reached [noted that this value is the value set such that "the minimum target state of charge of a battery for the electric vehicle 102 to cover expected vehicle usage" the vehicle can travel the expected future use without complications], it means that the battery is charged to this value before the schedule occurs, so if the battery is greater than this predefined SOC range, then the schedule is followed as claimed. ¶’s [27-40, esp. 36-37] teach when the current SOC is lower than the minimum target SOC in step 502 [i.e., not being in a zone/range] then the controller charges the EV battery based on the charging schedule in step 504 [i.e., delays charging from an immediate time to a future time]. The charging schedule defined in step 310 of Fig. 3 and ¶ [33] includes timeframes in the future).
Bharmal teaches and responsive to the state-of-charge being within the zone/range, the power system initiates charging of the electrochemical cell before the future time until the state-of-charge is not within the zone/range (As noted above, since the value is below the minimum target SOC, it is within the range, and thus charged until out of the range, then the schedule is followed. ¶’s [27-40, esp. 36-38] teach when the current SOC is greater than the minimum target SOC in step 502 but below the maximum target SOC in step 506 [i.e., within the zone/range] then a charging time may be identified such as during a partial peak timeframe in ¶ [39] [i.e., before the future predefined time] and charging is done then. Steps 504, 506, and 508 repeat for as long as the current SOC falls within the predefined SOC range [i.e., not within the capacity-lowering zone]).
However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach a capacity-lowering zone for lithium-ion batteries; the capacity-lowering zone being less than 98%.
O’Hara teaches a capacity-lowering zone for lithium-ion batteries (SOC range with respect to a capacity-lowering zone for lithium-ion batteries, see the abstract and ¶’s [04-06, 39, 147]).
When the capacity of an EV battery lowers, charging and discharging rates are actively managed to protect the cells from damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bharmal by adding the features disclosed by O’Hara to teach a capacity-lowering zone/range affects the charging/discharging operation of an electrical vehicle with respect to the SOC of the battery. The advantage of this modification being the lithium-ion battery of a vehicle may be brought to a desired SOC range for storage in a controlled manner that is less cumbersome and can be performed in parallel on multiple vehicles (see ¶’s [150, 158] of O’Hara).
Bharmal in view of O’Hara discloses the claimed invention except for the capacity-lowering zone being less than 98%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the capacity-lowering zone to less than 98%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach wherein the capacity-lowering zone is a state-of-charge less than 90%.
Bharmal in view of O’Hara discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the capacity-lowering zone is a state-of-charge less than 90%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made define the capacity-lowering zone as a state-of-charge less than 90%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 14, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 13 however for examination purposes this will be interpreted as claim 11. Further, Bharmal teaches wherein the power system is configured to charge the electrochemical cell to a threshold state-of-charge, responsive to the plug-in event and the current state-of-charge being less than the range/zone and discontinue charging until the future time, wherein the threshold state-of-charge is less than the range/zone (¶’s [27-40] teach system 100 charges a current SOC to a minimum target SOC [i.e., threshold SOC] in step 504 and in step 508 identifies a suitable charging time [i.e., discontinues charging until a future time]. This occurs when the current SOC is less than the minimum target SOC which is less than the SOC min/max range [i.e., current SOC < threshold SOC < zone]).
However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach a capacity-lowering zone.
O’Hara teaches a capacity-lowering zone for lithium-ion batteries (SOC range with respect to a capacity-lowering zone for lithium-ion batteries, see the abstract and ¶’s [04-06, 39, 147]).
When the capacity of an EV battery lowers, charging and discharging rates are actively managed to protect the cells from damage. Therefore, it would have obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bharmal by adding the features disclosed by O’Hara to teach a capacity-lowering zone/range affects the charging/discharging operation of an electrical vehicle with respect to the SOC of the battery. The advantage of this modification being the lithium-ion battery of a vehicle may be brought to a desired SOC range for storage in a controlled manner that is less cumbersome and can be performed in parallel on multiple vehicles (see ¶’s [150, 158] of O’Hara).
With respect to independent claim 15, Bharmal teaches a method of smart charging (Figs. 3-5, the schedule generating method 300, the example cost graph 400, and the charging method 500 of Fig. 5 are executed/selected by the controller 104, see ¶’s [27, 34-35]).
Bharmal teaches the method comprising executing a charging command to initiate charging at a future time responsive to a plug-in event and a state-of-charge being outside a defined range (Predefined SOC range is 0%-Minimum SOC, clear from abstract, 302[Fig. 3] & 502[Fig. 5], and para's [03-05, 27, 28, 36, 37, esp. 28] that by saying whether the minimum SOC has been reached [noted that this value is the value set such that "the minimum target state of charge of a battery for the electric vehicle 102 to cover expected vehicle usage" the vehicle can travel the expected future use without complications], it means that the battery is charged to this value before the schedule occurs, so if the battery is greater than this predefined SOC range, then the schedule is followed as claimed. ¶’s [27-40, esp. 36-37] teach when the I/O 206 is connected [i.e., plug-in event] and the current SOC is lower than the minimum target SOC in step 502 [i.e., being outside a defined range] then the controller begins charging the EV battery [i.e., executing a charging command to initiate charging] based on the charging schedule in step 504 [i.e., at a future time]).
Bharmal teaches initiate charging before the future time, responsive to the plug-in event and the state-of-charge being within the defined range and continue charging until the state-of-charge is outside the defined range (As noted above, since the value is below the minimum target SOC, it is within the range, and thus charged until out of the range, then the schedule is followed. ¶’s [27-40, esp. 36-38] teach when the I/O 206 is connected [i.e., plug-in event] and the current SOC is greater than the minimum target SOC in step 502 but below the maximum target SOC in step 506 [i.e., being within the defined range] then a charging time may be identified such as during a partial peak timeframe in ¶ [39] [i.e., before the future predefined time] and charging is done then. Steps 504, 506, and 508 repeat for as long as the current SOC falls within the predefined SOC range. Charging stops in step 510 when charging has reached the maximum target SOC [i.e., outside the defined range]).
However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach wherein the defined range is a capacity-lowering zone that is more susceptible to fading or capacity-loss when a battery is stored at a state-of-charge within the capacity lowering zone; the capacity-lowering zone is within a 60-90% state-of-charge.
O’Hara teaches wherein the defined range is a capacity-lowering zone that is more susceptible to fading or capacity-loss when a battery is stored at a state-of-charge within the capacity lowering zone (SOC range with respect to a capacity-lowering zone for lithium-ion batteries in consideration of susceptibility to capacity-loss, see the abstract and ¶’s [04-06, 39, 147]).
When the capacity of an EV battery lowers, charging and discharging rates are actively managed to protect the cells from damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified Bharmal by adding the features disclosed by O’Hara to teach a capacity-lowering zone/range affects the charging/discharging operation of an electrical vehicle with respect to the SOC of the battery. The advantage of this modification being the lithium-ion battery of a vehicle may be brought to a desired SOC range for storage in a controlled manner that is less cumbersome and can be performed in parallel on multiple vehicles (see ¶’s [150, 158] of O’Hara).
Bharmal in view of O’Hara discloses the claimed invention except for the capacity-lowering zone is within a 60-90% state-of-charge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the capacity-lowering zone to be within 60-90% SOC, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 16, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Bharmal teaches wherein the charging command initiates charging to a threshold state-of-charge less than the defined range and discontinues charging at the threshold state- of-charge until the future time responsive to the plug-in event and the state-of-charge being less than the defined range (¶’s [27-40, esp. esp. 37, 39] teach a charging command is initiated to charge a current SOC to a minimum target SOC [i.e., threshold SOC] in step 504 and in step 508 identifies a suitable charging time [i.e., discontinues charging until a future time]. This occurs when the current SOC is less than the minimum target SOC which is less than the SOC min/max range [i.e., current SOC < threshold SOC < defined range]).
With respect to claim 17, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Bharmal teaches wherein the charging command is executed on a vehicle (¶ [35] teaches the charging method 500 is executed on an electric vehicle 102).
With respect to claim 18, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Bharmal teaches wherein the charging command charges to a target state-of-charge at the future time (¶’s [27-40], teach a minimum target SOC or a maximum target SOC [i.e., target SOC] that are charged based on a schedule [i.e., a future time]).
With respect to claim 19, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Bharmal teaches wherein the charging command is responsive to energy demand data such that the future time is an off-peak time derived from the energy demand data (¶ [30-33] teach electricity cost rates for a timeframe from a charging infrastructure is received by the controller 104 to determine an off-peak time-period and incorporate that into the charging schedule of the electric vehicle).
With respect to claim 20, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Bharmal teaches wherein the future time is between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM (Fig. 4, 402-1 and 402-2 are off-peak hours between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am which may be scheduled in the future).
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharmal (USPGPN 20230256852).
With respect to claim 21, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is less than 98%.
Bharmal discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is less than 98%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predefined state-of-charge range as being less than 98%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 22, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is less than 97.5%.
Bharmal discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is less than 97.5%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predefined state-of-charge range as being less than 97.5%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 23, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is less than 90%.
Bharmal discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is less than 90%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predefined state-of-charge range as being less than 90%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 24, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is greater than 50%.
Bharmal discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is greater than 50%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predefined state-of-charge range as being greater than 50%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 25, Bharmal teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Bharmal fails to explicitly teach wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is greater than 60%.
Bharmal discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the predefined state-of-charge range is greater than 60%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predefined state-of-charge range as being greater than 60%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Wiebenga et al. (USPGPN 20220355697) describes a way to protect a rechargeable battery, especially a vehicle traction battery, from wear caused by bad charging habits. A controller watches battery data such as state of charge and temperature. It counts how often the battery gets too empty or too full, and it can also track how long the battery stays in risky conditions. The system compares those counts or times against preset limits, which may come from a lookup table or from data gathered from similar users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights