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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, & 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 9, 11-15, 16, & 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Döner (European Publication EP 3,653,429 A1 – published May, 20, 2020), in view of Roumi et al. (USPGPN 2020/0006962 A1 – published Jan. 2, 2020) and Gaul et al. (USPGPN 2012/0013301 A1 – published Jan. 19, 2012).
Regarding Claim 1, Döner (Fig.1) teaches a battery charging system, comprising:
a charging station (10) adapted to deliver a charge to a battery module (24) of a vehicle (20) coupled (30) to the charging station,
wherein a control unit (14) of the charging station receives an available charging time (¶0037: historical data of an available charge time, e.g. 3 hours) and battery information (¶0045: time required for full charge requires knowledge of the current charge level of the battery) from a battery control unit (26) of the vehicle
when the control unit of the charging station detects coupling of a connector/coupler of the charging station to the vehicle (¶0036: charging station receives vehicle identification after connection) or
when the vehicle is detected within a predetermined proximity of the charging station
and delivers a determined charging power to selected battery cells of the plurality of battery cells for each of the plurality of battery cells such that the selected battery cells are not damaged (¶[45: where acknowledgement of the maximum rate which is permitted helps to ensure the battery cells are not damaged).
Döner fails to explicitly teach the control unit of the charging station receiving an available charging time entered by a user into a control unit of the vehicle, a mobile device of the user, or a user interface associated with the charging station, from the control unit of the vehicle, the mobile device of the user, or the user interface associated with the charging station and a battery state of health for each of a plurality of battery cells from a battery control unit of the vehicle, and uses the SOH data to determine the charging power.
However, Gaul teaches a control unit of a charging station receiving an available charging time entered by a user into a control unit of the vehicle, from the control unit of the vehicle (¶0038-0041: A user enters a desired charge time through a display, which is communicated to the central control unit, then the central control unit provides the charge time to the charging station, through the charging cable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Döner with Gaul to have the control unit of a charging station receive an available charging time entered by a user into a control unit of the vehicle, from the control unit of the vehicle. Doing so allows the charging system to account for a user’s desired charging time when generating a power supply option so that a user may understand when charging will be completed, as evidenced by Gaul.
Moreover, Roumi teaches a battery management system for a battery pack (Fig.2, 106) comprising a plurality of battery cells (Fig.2, 206A within 202A & 206A within 202B), which receives state of health information for a plurality of battery cells (¶0189: state of health measurements, e.g. impedance, is taken per cell, ¶’s [189-191] shows that the SOH of the cell is used to determine the charging power).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Döner with Roumi to include measuring the state of health of the individual cells of the vehicle battery and using the state of health to manage the charging process of the battery. Doing so allows for selective charging based on battery health which helps avoid an over-voltage of a cell that has a weak state of health, which could result in thermal runaway, while improving the efficiency of charging the healthy cells, as evidenced by Roumi (¶0190 & 0191).
Regarding Claim 2, Döner, as modified, further teaches wherein the battery state of health comprises one or more of, for the battery module or a battery of the battery module, state of charge, impedance (As disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Roumi discloses state of health includes impedance measurements), conductance, capacity, internal resistance, self-discharge, charge acceptance, discharge capability, electrolyte mobility, cycle count, and chemistry.
Regarding Claim 4, Döner, as modified, further teaches wherein the determined charging power is one of:
set by the control unit given an available charging power delivered to the charging station by an associated power supply; and
selected by the control unit to maximize a voltage delivered to the battery module in the available charging time given an available charging power delivered to the charging station by an associated power supply (¶0045 & 0046: Café charge power of 100%, maximum permitted charge rate, is provided since it would require 1 hour to fully charge the battery and the available charging time is 50 minutes).
Regarding Claim 5, Döner, as modified, further teaches wherein the control unit of the charging station receives a modified available charging time from the user of the vehicle while delivering the charge to the battery module of the vehicle and delivers a modified determined charging power to the battery module based on the modified available charging time (¶0050: the charging station may determine from the user’s location that they will arrive sooner than originally determined and increases the charging rate in response).
Regarding Claim 6, Döner, as modified, further teaches wherein the control unit of the charging station receives the available charging time from the user of the vehicle via one of a wired connection (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, Gaul teaches the communication occurring across the charging cable), a wireless connection, a near field connection, and a cloud network.
Regarding Claim 7, Döner fails to explicitly teach wherein the control unit of the charging station communicates to the user an expected or resulting charge/range provided by charging the vehicle using the determined charging power for the available charging time.
However, Gaul teaches a vehicle charging system where a central control unit communicates to a user a resulting charge provided by charging the vehicle using the determined charging power for the available charging time (¶0039: control unit provides a determined power based on a charge time; ¶0048: during the charging process the state of charge can be displayed on device 30 for the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Döner, in view of Gaul and Roumi, with Gaul to include communication to the user the resulting charge provided by charging the vehicle using the determined charging power. Doing so allows a user to easily see the current state of charge of the vehicle battery.
Regarding Claims 8 & 15, Döner teaches a battery charging method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (¶0017: non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing the program) comprising instructions stored in a memory and executed by a processor to carry out battery charging steps comprising:
receiving an available charging time (¶0037: historical data of an available charge time, e.g. 3 hours) and battery information (¶0045: time required for full charge requires knowledge of the current charge level of the battery) from a battery control unit of the vehicle when a control unit of the charging station detects coupling of a connector/coupler of the charging station to the vehicle (¶0036: charging station receives vehicle identification after connection) or when the vehicle is detected within a predetermined proximity of the charging station;
at the control unit of the charging station, determining a charging power to be delivered to a battery module of the vehicle based on the battery information (¶0045: charge power is calculated based on time spent at location and time required for full charge); and
delivering a charge at the determined charging power from the charging station to a battery based on the battery information for the available charging time (¶0007: charge rate is delivered to the vehicle).
Döner fails to explicitly teach receiving battery state of health for each of a plurality of battery cells and delivering the determined charging power to selected battery cells of the plurality of battery cells based on the battery state of health for each of the plurality of battery cells such that the selected battery cells are not damaged.
However, Gaul teaches a control unit of a charging station receiving an available charging time entered by a user into a control unit of the vehicle, from the control unit of the vehicle (¶0038-0041: A user enters a desired charge time through a display, which is communicated to the central control unit, then the central control unit provides the charge time to the charging station, through the charging cable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Döner with Gaul to have the control unit of a charging station receive an available charging time entered by a user into a control unit of the vehicle, from the control unit of the vehicle. Doing so allows the charging system to account for a user’s desired charging time when generating a power supply option so that a user may understand when charging will be completed, as evidenced by Gaul.
Moreover, Roumi teaches a battery management system for a battery pack (Fig.2, 106) comprising a plurality of battery cells (Fig.2, 206A within 202A & 206A within 202B), which receives state of health information for a plurality of battery cells (¶0189: state of health measurements, e.g. impedance, is taken per cell), and that a determined charging power is provided to selected battery cells such that they are not damaged (¶’s [189-191]: Cells 1 & 3 receive the determined current while Cell 2 receives a reduced current, thus charging cells 1 & 3 more efficiently).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method taught by Döner with Roumi to include measuring the state of health of the individual cells of the vehicle battery, and provide the determined charging power to selected battery cells based on the battery state of health for each of the battery cells. Doing so would avoid an over-voltage of a cell that has a weak state of health, which could result in thermal runaway, while improving the efficiency of charging the healthy cells, as evidenced by Roumi (¶0190 & 0191).
Regarding Claims 9 & 16, Döner, as modified, further teaches wherein the battery state of health comprises one or more of, for the battery module or a battery of the battery module, state of charge, impedance (As disclosed in the rejections of claims 8 & 15 above, Roumi discloses state of health includes impedance measurements), conductance, capacity, internal resistance, self-discharge, charge acceptance, discharge capability, electrolyte mobility, cycle count, and chemistry.
Regarding Claims 11 & 18, Döner, as modified, further teaches wherein the determined charging power is one of:
set by the control unit given an available charging power delivered to the charging station by an associated power supply; and
selected by the control unit to maximize a voltage delivered to the battery module in the available charging time given an available charging power delivered to the charging station by an associated power supply (¶0045 & 0046: Café charge power of 100%, maximum permitted charge rate, is provided since it would require 1 hour to fully charge the battery and the available charging time is 50 minutes).
Regarding Claims 12 & 19, Döner, as modified, further teaches wherein the control unit of the charging station receives a modified available charging time from the user of the vehicle while delivering the charge to the battery module of the vehicle and delivers a modified determined charging power to the battery module based on the modified available charging time (¶0050: the charging station may determine from the user’s location that they will arrive sooner than originally determined and increases the charging rate in response).
Regarding Claims 13 & 20, Döner further teaches wherein the control unit of the charging station receives the available charging time from the user of the vehicle via one of a wired connection (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, Gaul teaches the communication occurring across the charging cable), a wireless connection, a near field connection, and a cloud network.
Regarding Claims 14 & 21, Döner fails to explicitly teach wherein the control unit of the charging station communicates to the user an expected or resulting charge/range provided by charging the vehicle using the determined charging power for the available charging time.
However, Gaul teaches a vehicle charging system where a central control unit communicates to a user a resulting charge provided by charging the vehicle using the determined charging power for the available charging time (¶0039: control unit provides a determined power based on a charge time; ¶0048: during the charging process the state of charge can be displayed on device 30 for the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method taught by Döner, in view of Gaul and Roumi, with Gaul to include communication to the user the resulting charge provided by charging the vehicle using the determined charging power. Doing so allows a user to easily see the current state of charge of the vehicle battery.
Claim(s) 3, 10, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Döner, in view of Gaul and Roumi, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Unagami et al. (USPGPN 2022/0063435 A1 – published Mar. 3, 2022).
Regarding Claim 3, Döner fails to explicitly teach wherein the determined charging power is delivered to the selected battery cells of the plurality of battery cells that have a battery state of health that has not exceeded a predetermined degradation or fault threshold, or said differently, the charging power is not delivered to the selected battery cells that have a battery state of health which has exceeded a predetermined degradation threshold.
However, Unagami teaches a charging system which does not charge an energy storage device when a degree of degradation exceeds a predetermined threshold (Abstract: electric energy storage device is not charged if the degree of deterioration is advanced beyond a predetermined threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Döner, in view of Gaul and Roumi, with Unagami to include a process of not charging a battery cell if the state of health of the cell exceeds a predetermined degradation threshold. Doing so helps ensure that the amount of power available in a battery cell can be kept equal to or greater than a determined amount, as evidenced by Unagami (¶0009).
Regarding Claims 10 & 17, Döner fails to explicitly teach wherein the determined charging power is delivered to the selected battery cells of the plurality of battery cells that have a battery state of health that has not exceeded a predetermined degradation or fault threshold, or said differently, the charging power is not delivered to the selected battery cells that have a battery state of health which has exceeded a predetermined degradation threshold.
However, Unagami teaches a charging system which does not charge an energy storage device when a degree of degradation exceeds a predetermined threshold (Abstract: electric energy storage device is not charged if the degree of deterioration is advanced beyond a predetermined threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Döner, in view of Gaul and Roumi, with Unagami to include a process of not charging a battery cell if the state of health of the cell exceeds a predetermined degradation threshold. Doing so helps ensure that the amount of power available in a battery cell can be kept equal to or greater than a determined amount, as evidenced by Unagami (¶0009).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859