DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 9/19/2025. Claims 1-3 and 6-15 are pending.
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 filed 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that applicant’s amendments to the claims, as best understood, have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response to applicant’s argument that a replacement abstract was submitted to remedy the examiner’s objections, it is noted that neither of the substitute abstracts submitted on 9/17/2025 nor 9/19/2025 appear to include amendments.
In response to applicant’s argument that the subject matter of the amended claims is supported by original claims 4-5, paragraphs 46-82, and figure 1 (applicant’s remarks; pp. 10 and 14), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure does not appear to support charging control, assigning colors to charging station priority levels, threshold logic, or updating routes. See rejections below.
In response to applicant’s argument that Kinomura does not disclose displaying levels indicating current battery charging performance because Kinomura merely discloses displaying a warning screen in a case where external charging is automatically executed and a warning screen in a case where external charging is not executed (applicant’s remarks; p. 12), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Kinomura discloses, in paragraph 7, that cost performance refers to the charge amount of electric power divided by the cost, therefore, the cost performance of Kinomura is a real-time metric indicating battery charging cost efficiency. Kinomura further discloses, in figures 11-12, displaying different warnings indicating different levels of cost performance (i.e., charging efficiency). See rejection below.
In response to applicant’s argument that neither Kinomura nor Saito disclose displaying priority levels of a charging station identified by color (applicant’s remarks; pp. 12-13), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 46 of the applicant’s specification discloses the excellent, good, and poor levels of charging performance are distinguished by color, however, there does not appear to be disclosure of identifying charging station priority levels by color, therefore, it is unclear how the priority levels of a charging station is identified by color. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that it is the plurality of levels indicating battery charging performance that are identified in different colors, as recited in claim 4 of the original filing. Saito discloses, in paragraph 69, that changes in charging efficiency are represented on a display using different colors. See rejection below.
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner cites only Kinomura and Saito to support the charging time is a time taken to charge the battery at each battery temperature from a first state of charge to a second state of charge (applicant’s remarks; p. 14), it is noted that it is the combination of Kinomura and Saito with Maleki that is relied upon to disclose said feature. See rejection below.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because, in line 4, the word “By” is capitalized. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 20, lines 3-4, the phrase “the vehicle can secure it to arrive” is unclear because it is unclear what the vehicle secures. It appears the phrase should read “the vehicle can arrive”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 10, “the controller initiates a corresponding charging control response” should read “and the controller initiates a corresponding charging control response”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 12, line 10, “waste heat of power electronic component” should read “waste heat of a power electronic component”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 12, lines 11-12, “selects between available heating options” should read “selects between the available heating options” to make it clear that the heating options are using the waste heat or battery heater.
Appropriate correction is required.
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/are: “a charging control module” in claim 1, line 15. Paragraph 84 generally discloses a control module refers to a hardware device including a memory and a processor, therefore, a charging control module will be interpreted as a hardware device including a memory and a processor, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 15-16, the limitation “the controller is further configured to control a charging control module” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of controlling the charging process itself. Paragraphs 16, 18, 49 and 69 indicate the disclosed battery conditioning methods are performed before reaching a charging station. Paragraphs 54-57 disclose the controller is responsible for displaying information and selecting the modes for battery conditioning.
Regarding claim 1, lines 18-19, the limitation “a graphic display … is identified by a color corresponding to a priority level of a charging station” appears to be new matter because the only disclosed usages of color are to distinguish the excellent, good, and poor levels of battery charging performance (see para. 46). There does not appear to be disclosure of using color to identify any information corresponding to the charging stations.
Regarding claim 3, line 10, the limitation “the controller initiates a corresponding charging control response” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of controlling the charging process itself. Paragraphs 16, 18, 49 and 69 indicate the disclosed battery conditioning methods are performed before reaching a charging station. Paragraphs 54-57 disclose the controller is responsible for displaying information and selecting the modes for battery conditioning.
Regarding claim 10, lines 4-5, the limitation “the controller controls switching between the modes based on threshold logic” appears to be new matter because the disclosure does not appear to define the term “threshold logic”, nor include any explicit thresholds or limits, therefore, switching between modes based on threshold logic does not appear to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 14, line 9, the limitation “issue route update instructions” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be explicit disclosure of modifying the vehicle’s route. Paragraph 74 discloses the driver selects a destination and the controller proposes a charging station as a stop on the path for traveling to the destination. Paragraph 79-81 further disclose proposing second and third charging stations that are farther from the current location of the vehicle, however, there does not appear to be disclosure of modifying the path of the vehicle. The disclosure appears to be limited to selecting from charging stations at different distances along a path to a given destination.
Claims 2-3 and 6-15 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 15-16, the limitation “the controller is further configured to control a charging control module” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the charging process is controlled. Paragraphs 16, 18, 49 and 69 indicate the disclosed battery conditioning methods are performed before reaching a charging station. Paragraphs 54-57 disclose the controller is responsible for displaying information and selecting the modes for battery conditioning. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the controller includes software configured to enable different modes of battery conditioning.
Regarding claim 1, lines 18-19, the limitation “a graphic display … is identified by a color corresponding to a priority level of a charging station” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how colors are used to identify the priority levels of the charging stations. Paragraph 46 discloses colors are used to distinguish the excellent, good, and poor levels of battery charging performance. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed it is the battery charging performance levels that are displayed and identified by color.
Regarding claim 1, line 23, the limitation “as preset” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is the time taken to charge, first SOC, or second SOC that is preset. Paragraph 42 of the specification discloses preset first and second SOC value, therefore, for the purposes of examination, both SOC values will be assumed to be predetermined.
Regarding claim 3, line 10, the limitation “the controller initiates a corresponding charging control response” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the charging process is controlled. Paragraphs 16, 18, 49 and 69 indicate the disclosed battery conditioning methods are performed before reaching a charging station. Paragraphs 54-57 disclose the controller is responsible for displaying information and selecting the modes for battery conditioning. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the controller includes software configured to enable different modes of battery conditioning.
Regarding claim 6, lines 3-4, the limitation “a time taken to charge the battery at the current battery temperature from the first SOC to the second SOC” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this the same charging time determined in claim 1, lines 7-8. Paragraph 54 of the specification discloses the controller provides the charging time to the display, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to the same charging time.
Regarding claim 7, line 3, the limitation “a destination” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same destination that destination information was provided for in line 2. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to a single destination.
Regarding claim 10, lines 4-5, the limitation “the controller controls switching between the modes based on threshold logic” renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the term “threshold logic” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term, therefore, it is unclear when the modes are switched. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim, the written description must clearly define the claim term and set forth an uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so define that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that different battery conditioning modes are selected based on the current battery temperature.
Regarding claim 12, lines 8-9, the limitation “among the modes for increasing the battery temperature” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim making it unclear how the modes are defined. It is further unclear if the claim should be dependent on claim 10. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the battery conditioning performed by the controller recited in claim 7, line 6, includes the modes for increasing the battery temperature recited in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, lines 5-6, the limitation “a selection is made to perform the battery conditioning” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same selection made in claim 8, line 6. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to the same selection.
Regarding claim 13, line 6, the limitation “a result of the selection is input” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same result of the selection recited in claim 8, lines 6-7. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to the same selection result.
Regarding claim 14, line 9, the limitation “issue route update instructions” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the route is updated. Paragraph 74 discloses the driver selects a destination and the controller proposes a charging station as a stop on the path for traveling to the destination. Paragraph 79-81 further disclose proposing second and third charging stations that are farther from the current location of the vehicle, however, there does not appear to be disclosure of modifying the path of the vehicle. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that a route update is merely proposing a charging station that is further along the path to the destination than the currently proposed charging station.
Claims 2-3 and 6-15 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinomura (US 2018/0111495) in view of Saito (US 2013/0231818) and Maleki et al. (US 2015/0155719), hereinafter Maleki.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kinomura discloses a method of conditioning a battery of an electric vehicle, the method comprising: providing, to a controller (Kinomura; fig. 3: ECU 29), charging performance setting information as set by categorizing battery charging performance into a plurality of levels based on obtained information on charging time (Kinomura; fig 13: Kinomura discloses three levels where cost performance is below a first predetermined value, between first and second predetermined values, and above a second predetermined value. The cost performance is based on the stand use time [i.e., charging time] (para. 62) and the stand use time is predicted using the battery temperature (para. 64).); determining, by the controller, a charging time corresponding to a current battery temperature measured through a sensor, from the measured current battery temperature using information on the charging time varying with the battery temperature (Kinomura; para. 64: the ECU 29 is configured to predict the stand use time in accordance with the state (such as temperature or voltage) of the electrical storage device); selecting, by the controller, a level indicating current battery charging performance, among the plurality of levels, from the determined charging time corresponding to the current battery temperature using the charging performance setting information; and displaying, by the controller, the selected level on a display device of the vehicle in an identifiable manner (Kinomura; fig. 13: displaying warning screens S360 and S370), wherein the controller is further configured to control a charging control module or related circuitry based on the selected level to condition the battery in real-time to optimize charging efficiency (Kinomura; para. 56: in a case where … the temperature of the electrical storage device 25 is equal to or higher than a first predetermined temperature, the ECU 29 cools the electrical storage device 25 by controlling the temperature regulation system 28 before the electrical storage device 25 starts to be charged).
Kinomura does not explicitly disclose obtaining, through testing, information on charging time of the battery varying with a temperature thereof; a graphic display in the display device is identified by a color corresponding to a priority level of a charging station, and the controller is configured to generate the graphic display dynamically in accordance with real-time operating status; and wherein in the information on the charging time varying with the battery temperature, the charging time is a time taken to charge the battery at each battery temperature from a first state of charge (SOC) to a second SOC as preset.
Maleki, in the same field of endeavor (battery charging), discloses obtaining, through testing, information on charging time of the battery varying with a temperature thereof (Maleki; para. 38-39: the method 300 obtains a plurality of charging time periods. In one embodiment, step 301 can include storing the plurality of charging time periods in a memory operable with the one or more processors … the plurality of charging time periods can be from experimental testing in a laboratory that characterizes the charge time versus temperature performance of the one or more cells in use), wherein in the information on the charging time varying with the battery temperature, the charging time is a time taken to charge the battery at each battery temperature from a first state of charge (SOC) to a second SOC as preset (Maleki; fig. 2: each data point in the chart is the time it takes to increase the state of charge from 3.0 to 4.35 volts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the stand use time prediction of Kinomura to use experimentally determined charging times with respect battery temperatures, as disclosed by Maleki, to yield the predictable result of accurately estimating charging times.
Kinomura, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a graphic display in the display device is identified by a color corresponding to a priority level of a charging station, and the controller is configured to generate the graphic display dynamically in accordance with real-time operating status.
Saito, in the same field of endeavor (electric vehicle charging), discloses a graphic display in a display device is identified by a color corresponding to a priority level of a charging station, and a controller is configured to generate the graphic display dynamically in accordance with real-time operating status (Saito; para. 69: representation of the change in the charging efficiency Ec by the color of the segment 52A also enables the user to recognize the change in the charging efficiency Ec easily and visually).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the warning screen backgrounds of Kinomura, as modified, to be different colors corresponding to the charging performance levels, as disclosed by Saito, with the motivation of enabling a user to easily recognize a change in charging state (Saito; para. 69) thereby increasing usability.
Regarding claim 2, Kinomura, as modified, discloses in the charging performance setting information, the plurality of levels include first, second, and third levels that result from the categorizing based on the information on the charging time varying with the battery temperature (Kinomura; fig 13: Kinomura discloses three levels where cost performance is below a second predetermined value, between second and first predetermined values, and above a first predetermined value (para. 108). The cost performance is based on the stand use time [i.e., charging time] (para. 62) and the stand use time is predicted using the battery temperature (para. 64).).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Kinomura, as modified, discloses in the selecting of the level indicating the current battery charging performance, when the charging time corresponding to the determined current battery temperature is shorter than a first preset setting time, the first level is selected (Kinomura; fig. 13: NO branch from S350), wherein when the charging time corresponding to the determined current battery temperature is equal to or longer than the preset first setting time and is shorter than a second preset setting time, the second level is selected (Kinomura; fig. 13: YES branch from S350), and wherein when the charging time corresponding to the determined current battery temperature is equal to or longer than the preset second setting time, the third level is selected (Kinomura; fig. 13: YES branch from S330), the controller initiates a corresponding charging control response for each level (Kinomura; paras. 130-131: The ECU 29C determines whether the temperature of the electrical storage device 25 is equal to or higher than the first predetermined temperature by referring to the output of the sensor unit 26 (step S700). In a case where the ECU determines that the temperature of the electrical storage device 25 is less than the first predetermined temperature (NO in step S700), the pre-charge cooling does not need to be performed, and thus the ECU 29C controls the charger 24 so as to execute the external charging (step S710). In a case where the ECU determines that the temperature of the electrical storage device 25 is equal to or higher than the first predetermined temperature (YES in step S700), the ECU 29C controls the display device 23 so as to display the screen for selecting whether or not to execute the pre-charge cooling (FIG. 15) (step S720).).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinomura in view of Saito and Maleki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nanbu et al. (US 2021/0309118), hereinafter Nanbu.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Kinomura, as modified, discloses a time taken to charge the battery at the current battery temperature from the first SOC to the second SOC at the current battery temperature (Maleki; fig. 2: each data point in the chart is the time it takes to increase the state of charge from 3.0 to 4.35 volts at a charging temperature), wherein the controller controls the display output based on SOC data and the current battery temperature (Kinomura; paras. 64-65: the ECU 29 is configured to predict the stand use time in accordance with the state (such as temperature or voltage) of the electrical storage device … The ECU 29 can predict the cost performance of the external charging by substituting the amount of charging power and the stand use time that are predicted and the charging fee per unit time into Expression (2).; fig. 13: displaying warning screens S360 and S370).
Kinomura, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the information displayed on the display device includes a time taken to charge the battery from the first SOC to the second SOC.
Nanbu, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle battery charging), discloses information displayed on a display device includes a time taken to charge a battery from a first SOC to a second SOC (Nanbu; para. 26: provides a notification of the predicted charging time by using, for example, a display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, for the current battery temperature, the display of Kinomura, as modified, to display the predicted battery charging time, as disclosed by Nanbu, to yield the predictable result of notifying the driver how long charging will take.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinomura in view of Saito and Maleki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 10,647,218), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Kinomura, as modified, discloses the controller interacts with a battery heater or coolant control unit to execute the conditioning (Kinomura; para. 51: the temperature regulation system 28 is configured to cool the electrical storage device 25 using the refrigerant circulating through the refrigerant circuit; para. 56: the ECU 29 cools the electrical storage device 25 by controlling the temperature regulation system 28 before the electrical storage device 25 starts to be charged).
Kinomura, as modified, does not explicitly disclose providing, by a navigation device, to the controller, destination information and information on a path for traveling to a destination, which are received from a driver, and information on a traveling time to the destination which is taken for the vehicle to travel from a current location to the destination, before the vehicle travels; and performing, by the controller, battery conditioning for controlling battery temperature based on the destination information and the information on the traveling time to the destination that are provided, while the vehicle travels.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle battery charging), discloses providing, by a navigation device, to a controller, destination information and information on a path for traveling to a destination, which are received from a driver (Huang; col. 5, ll. 59-64: one or more icons 34 could represent one or more choices of different POIs, such as electric vehicle charging stations, to the operator of the vehicle 10. If the operator of the vehicle 10 selects one of these icons 34, the system 12 will determine a route to the selected POI), and information on a traveling time to the destination which is taken for the vehicle to travel from a current location to the destination, before the vehicle travels (Huang; fig. 4: step 54); and performing, by the controller, battery conditioning for controlling battery temperature based on the destination information and the information on the traveling time to the destination that are provided, while the vehicle travels (Huang; fig. 4: step 58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the ECU of Kinomura to perform battery conditioning based on the predicted state of the battery after traveling to a charging station selected by the driver, as disclosed by Huang, with the motivation of thermally conditioning the battery pack before the vehicle reaches the charging station, thereby decreasing charging time and extending the useful life of the battery (Huang; col. 8, ll. 40-44).
Regarding claim 8, Kinomura, as modified, discloses displaying, by the controller, on the display device guidance information indicating that whether or not the battery conditioning is performed needs to be selected and that a result of the selection needs to be input, after the displaying of the selected level in the identifiable manner (Kinomura; fig. 15), wherein the battery conditioning is performed in a case where, through an input device connected to the controller, a selection is made to perform the battery conditioning and where a result of the selection is input (Kinomura; fig. 16: YES branch from S740).
Regarding claim 9, Kinomura, as modified, discloses in the charging performance setting information, the plurality of levels include first, second, and third levels that result from the categorizing by the information on the charging time varying with the battery temperature (Kinomura; fig 13: Kinomura discloses three levels where cost performance is below a first predetermined value, between first and second predetermined values, and above a second predetermined value. The cost performance is based on the stand use time [i.e., charging time] (para. 62) and the stand use time is predicted using the battery temperature (para. 64).), wherein in the selecting of the level indicating the current battery charging performance, when the charging time corresponding to the determined current battery temperature is shorter than a preset first setting time, the first level is selected (Kinomura; fig. 13: NO branch from S350), wherein when the charging time corresponding to the determined current battery temperature is equal to or longer than the preset first setting time and is shorter than a preset second setting time, the second level is selected (Kinomura; fig. 13: YES branch from S350), and wherein when the charging time corresponding to the determined current battery temperature is equal to or longer than the preset second setting time, the third level is selected (Kinomura; fig. 13: YES branch from S330), and the controller executes battery thermal regulation functions corresponding to the selected level (Kinomura; paras. 130-131: The ECU 29C determines whether the temperature of the electrical storage device 25 is equal to or higher than the first predetermined temperature by referring to the output of the sensor unit 26 (step S700). In a case where the ECU determines that the temperature of the electrical storage device 25 is less than the first predetermined temperature (NO in step S700), the pre-charge cooling does not need to be performed, and thus the ECU 29C controls the charger 24 so as to execute the external charging (step S710). In a case where the ECU determines that the temperature of the electrical storage device 25 is equal to or higher than the first predetermined temperature (YES in step S700), the ECU 29C controls the display device 23 so as to display the screen for selecting whether or not to execute the pre-charge cooling (FIG. 15) (step S720).).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Kinomura, as modified, discloses determining, by the controller, a charging station present on the path for traveling, as a stop, based on the destination information and the information on the path for traveling to the destination that are provided (Huang; fig. 4: step 56) and displaying, by the controller, the determined charging station on the navigation device, when through the input device, a selection is made to perform the battery conditioning and where a result of the selection is input (Huang; col. 5; ll. 58-64: the device 30 displays one or more icons 34. These one or more icons 34 could represent one or more choices of different POIs, such as electric vehicle charging stations, to the operator of the vehicle 10. If the operator of the vehicle 10 selects one of these icons 34, the system 12 will determine a route to the selected POI).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinomura in view of Saito, Maleki and Huang as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Shaotran (US 2023/0001824).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Kinomura, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Kinomura, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in the performing of the battery conditioning, modes for increasing a battery temperature of the battery, which are differentiated according to the level indicating the selected current battery charging performance and to the information on the traveling time to the destination are performed and the controller controls switching between the modes based on threshold logic.
Shaotran, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle battery charging), discloses in the performing of battery conditioning of a battery, modes for increasing a battery temperature, which are differentiated according to a level indicating a current battery charging performance and to information on a traveling time to a destination are performed and a controller controls switching between the modes based on threshold logic (Shaotran; para. 51-52: the route r may be analyzed to determine a route-based preconditioning start time tr. The vehicle 120 may therefore precondition the battery along the route r before reaching the destination charging station 116 and based on the present/real-time (or substantially real-time) conditions of the battery … preconditioning starting at time tb can require the vehicle 120 to artificially generate heat in the battery that raises the temperature in a manner following curve 187b. By comparison, preconditioning starting at time tr can require the vehicle 120 to avoid generating that heat and to instead predictively use waste heat while traveling to cause the battery temperature to follow curve 187a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the ECU of Kinomura, as modified, to execute different pre-charge heating strategies in response to the battery temperature with respect to the traveling time, as disclosed by Shaotran, with the motivation of decreasing charging time (Shaotran; para. 2) thereby increasing utility.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Kinomura, as modified, discloses in the charging performance setting information, the plurality of levels include first, second, and third levels that result from the categorizing by the information on the charging time varying with the battery temperature (Kinomura; fig 13: Kinomura discloses three levels where cost performance is below a first predetermined value, between first and second predetermined values, and above a second predetermined value. The cost performance is based on the stand use time [i.e., charging time] (para. 62) and the stand use time is predicted using the battery temperature (para. 64).).
Kinomura, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in the performing of the battery conditioning, when a level indicating the selected current battery charging performance is the third level or the traveling time to the destination is shorter than a preset time for increasing the battery temperature, among the modes for increasing the battery temperature, a basic mode for increasing the battery temperature is performed in which only waste heat of power electronic component or heat of a battery heater is used to increase the battery temperature, and the controller selects between available heating options.
Shaotran, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle battery charging), discloses in the performing of battery conditioning, when a level indicating current battery charging performance is a predetermined level or a traveling time to a destination is shorter than a preset time for increasing battery temperature (Shaotran; fig. 1B: the traveling time to the destination is the interval between tr and tn, which is greater than the baseline preconditioning time interval tb to tn), among modes for increasing the battery temperature, a basic mode for increasing the battery temperature is performed in which only waste heat of power electronic component or heat of a battery heater is used to increase the battery temperature and the controller selects between available heating options (Shaotran; para. 52: preconditioning starting at time tr can require the vehicle 120 to avoid generating that heat and to instead predictively use waste heat while traveling to cause the battery temperature to follow curve 187a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the ECU of Kinomura, as modified, to execute different pre-charge heating strategies in response to the battery temperature with respect to the traveling time, as disclosed by Shaotran, with the motivation of decreasing charging time (Shaotran; para. 2) thereby increasing utility.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinomura in view of Saito, Maleki, Huang and Shaotran as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Carpenter et al. (US 2013/0269911), hereinafter Carpenter.
Kinomura, as modified, discloses in the charging performance setting information, the plurality of levels include first, second, and third levels that result from the categorizing by the information on the charging time varying with the battery temperature (Kinomura; fig 13: Kinomura discloses three levels where cost performance is below a first predetermined value, between first and second predetermined values, and above a second predetermined value. The cost performance is based on the stand use time [i.e., charging time] (para. 62) and the stand use time is predicted using the battery temperature (para. 64).) and performing battery conditioning when a condition that the level indicating the selected current battery charging performance is the third level (Kinomura; fig. 13: YES branch from S330).
Kinomura, as modified, does not explicitly disclose performing battery conditioning when a condition that the traveling time to the destination is shorter than a preset time for increasing the battery temperature is satisfied.
Shaotran, further discloses performing battery conditioning when a condition that a traveling time to a destination is shorter than a preset time for increasing a battery temperature is satisfied (Shaotran; para. 52: If the vehicle 120 initiates preconditioning at the baseline preconditioning time tb, the battery temperature may follow a baseline preconditioning temperature curve 187b in order to reach the preconditioning temperature 188. In part because the temperature of the battery is lower at time tb as compared to time tr, the curve 187b is both steeper and taller than the curve 187a, which indicates that preconditioning starting at time tb (and at its associated temperature) requires both a greater temperature change and a higher preconditioning intensity (i.e., higher power/energy expenditure) as compared to preconditioning starting at time tr.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the ECU of Kinomura, as modified, to execute different pre-charge heating strategies in response to the battery temperature with respect to the traveling time, as disclosed by Shaotran, with the motivation of decreasing charging time (Shaotran; para. 2) thereby increasing utility.
Although Kinomura, as modified, discloses increasing battery temperature using waste heat or battery heaters (Shaotran; para. 49 and 52), it is unclear if Kinomura, as modified, explicitly discloses among the modes for increasing the battery temperature, a boost mode for increasing the battery temperature in which waste heat of a power electronic component and heat of a battery heater are used at a same time to increase the battery temperature is performed.
Carpenter, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle battery conditioning), discloses among modes for increasing a battery temperature, a boost mode for increasing the battery temperature in which waste heat of a power electronic component and heat of a battery heater are used at a same time to increase the battery temperature is performed (Carpenter; para. 85: the controller 78 can use both the motor circuit 56 and the battery circuit heater 108 to heat the battery circuit thermal load 96 to an acceptable temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the ECU of Kinomura, as modified, to increase the battery temperature using waste heat and battery together, as disclosed by Carpenter, to yield the predictable result of increasing the battery temperature more quickly.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinomura in view of Saito, Maleki and Huang as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Son (US 2016/0349075).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Kinomura, as modified, discloses in the charging performance setting information, the plurality of levels include first, second, and third levels that result from the categorizing by the information on the charging time varying with the battery temperature (Kinomura; fig 13: Kinomura discloses three levels where cost performance is below a first predetermined value, between first and second predetermined values, and above a second predetermined value. The cost performance is based on the stand use time [i.e., charging time] (para. 62) and the stand use time is predicted using the battery temperature (para. 64).), and wherein when determining the charging station as the stop, if the level indicating the battery charging performance is able to switch to the first level within a time taken for the vehicle on the path for traveling to arrive at a charging station (Huang; col. 8, ll. 37-44: the thermal conditioning of the battery pack 14 occurs while the vehicle 10 is traveling to the charging station and not merely after the vehicle has already arrived at this charging station. By thermally conditioning the battery pack 14 before the vehicle 10 reaches the charging station, the battery pack 14 can be charged more quickly [i.e., the cost performance is reduced], and the useful life of the battery pack 14 can be extended).
Kinomura, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a charging station positioned closest to a current location of the vehicle, wherein the controller is configured to determine the charging station as the stop and issue route update instructions.
Son, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle navigation), discloses a charging station positioned closest to a current location of the vehicle, wherein the controller is configured to determine the charging station as the stop and issue route update instructions (Son; para. 53: if the driver wishes to securely fuel while seeking low fuel cost, the driver is able to choose the first fuel station [i.e., the closest fuel station in fig. 6] represented by the first fuel station icon 609 for fueling before going to the POI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the charging station selection by the navigation device of Kinomura, as modified, to select stations based on different factors including distance from the vehicle, as disclosed by Son, with the motivation of presenting route scheduling information for the vehicle to a driver in a user-friendly manner, in order to assist the driver to determine efficient routes with timely fueling for the vehicle (Son; para. 1) thereby increasing convenience.
Regarding claim 15, Kinomura, as modified, discloses the controller is configured to cause the navigation device to display guidance information so that the driver is able to select the charging station determined as the stop (Huang; col. 5; ll. 58-64: the device 30 displays one or more icons 34. These one or more icons 34 could represent one or more choices of different POIs, such as electric vehicle charging stations, to the operator of the vehicle 10. If the operator of the vehicle 10 selects one of these icons 34, the system 12 will determine a route to the selected POI), wherein when the driver does not select the displayed stop (Son; para. 53: the driver may wish to fill-in the gas at the second fuel station), when the level indicating the battery charging performance is able to switch to the first level within the time taken for the vehicle on the path for traveling to arrive at a sub-optimal charging station (Huang; col. 8, ll. 37-44: the thermal conditioning of the battery pack 14 occurs while the vehicle 10 is traveling to the charging station and not merely after the vehicle has already arrived at this charging station. By thermally conditioning the battery pack 14 before the vehicle 10 reaches the charging station, the battery pack 14 can be charged more quickly [i.e., the cost performance is reduced], and the useful life of the battery pack 14 can be extended) positioned the second closest to the current location, the controller is configured to determine the sub-optimal charging station as the stop, and wherein the controller is configured to cause the navigation device to display guidance information so that the driver is able to select the determined sub-optimal charging station (Son; para. 53: If the driver is willing to take a risk, the driver may wish to fill-in the gas at the second fuel station [i.e., even though the price at the second station is lower than the first, it is a sub-optimal choice because of the higher risk of the vehicle not reaching it] represented by the second fuel station icon 610 just before running out the fuel).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights