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) 14 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) 14-16, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (USPGPN 2017/0106760 A1 – published Apr. 20, 2017), in view of Gibeau et al. (USPGPN 2021/0206291 – published Jul. 8, 2021).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang (Figs.2, 3, & 5) teaches a system comprising:
a first controller (228) configured to cause a charger (222) to provide a DC charge current provided by the charger to a traction battery (214); and
a second controller (308) configured to measure a first terminal voltage (511) of the traction battery and to drive the estimator (¶0004: controller estimates the battery capacity), with the first terminal voltage to estimate a first state-of-charge of the traction battery (¶0023: SOC1 is estimated from the battery cell voltage), the second controller being further configured to detect a capacity of the traction battery based in part on the first SOC (517; ¶0022: EQ. 1).
Wang fails to explicitly teach the controller causing a charger to actively modulate the DC current, according to a pre-determined charge current profile constructed to provide persistent excitation of a traction battery of an electrified vehicle to enable accurate convergence of an estimator that utilizes voltage feedback based on a model of the traction battery to provide state and parameter estimations of the traction battery.
However, Gibeau teaches actively modulating a DC charge current, according to a pre-determined charge current profile constructed to provide persistent excitation of a traction battery of an electrified vehicle (¶0074: EKF charging current request varies the battery current to achieve a persistently exciting input) to enable accurate convergence of an estimator (¶0076: EKF parameter estimation converges) that utilizes voltage feedback based on a model of the traction battery to provide state and parameter estimations of the traction battery (¶0042: estimate impedance and voltage of the battery; ¶0043: y(k) may be derived from a voltage measurement; ¶0029: impedance parameters are based on an equivalent circuit model/ECM of the battery).
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 Wang with Gibeau to include actively modulating a DC charge current, according to a pre-determined charge current profile constructed to provide persistent excitation of a traction battery of an electrified vehicle to enable accurate convergence of an estimator that utilizes voltage feedback based on a model of the traction battery to provide state and parameter estimations of the traction battery. Doing so allows a system to allow for the benefit of estimating battery parameters during a charge cycle while providing little disruption to the charging process, as evidenced by Gibeau (¶0076).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang, as modified, further teaches the second controller is further configured to measure a second terminal voltage of the traction battery while the charge current is not being provided to the traction battery and the traction battery is in a steady state and to detect a second SOC of the traction battery based on the second terminal voltage (Wang: ¶0044: open circuit voltage is measured again after the battery is charged and used to determine SOC2).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang, as modified, further teaches the second controller is further configured to detect a capacity of the traction battery based in part on the first SOC and the second SOC (Wang: Fig.5, 517; ¶0022: EQ. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang fails to explicitly teach the estimator is an extended Kalman filter (EKF).
However, Gibeau teaches the estimator is an extend Kalman filter (¶0016: EKF).
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 Wang, in view of Gibeau, with Gibeau to use an EKF as the estimator. Doing so would allow the system to estimate battery parameters during a charge cycle while providing little disruption to the charging process, as evidenced by Gibeau (¶0076).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang, as modified, further teaches the electrified vehicle is a battery electric vehicle (BEV) (Wang: ¶0002: charging or discharging BEV’s).
Regarding Claim 21, Wang fails to explicitly teach the pre-determined charge current profile includes a sequence of DC charge current variations configured to provide the persistent excitation of the traction battery.
However, Gibeau teaches the pre-determined charge current profile includes a sequence of DC charge current variations configured to provide the persistent excitation of the traction battery (Fig.5; ¶0077; ¶0083).
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 Wang, in view of Gibeau, with Gibeau to use a pre-determined charge current profile including a sequence of DC charge current variations. Doing so would allow the system to estimate battery parameters during a charge cycle while providing little disruption to the charging process, as evidenced by Gibeau (¶0076).
Claim(s) 17 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Gibeau, as applied to rejection of claim 16 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (USPGPN 2021/0237614 A1 – published Aug. 5, 2021).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang fails to explicitly teach the second controller is further configured to detect an amount of current discharged from the traction battery between a first time that the traction battery has the second SOC and a subsequent second time that the traction battery has the first SOC; and the second controller detects the capacity of the traction battery based on the first SOC, the second SOC, and the amount of current.
However, Yao teaches a controller (Fig.1, 32) configured to monitor an amount of current discharged (¶0026: coulomb counting method calculates discharge current over time to estimate the battery SOC) from a battery (Fig.1, 22) (examiner equates calculating discharge current over time to “between a first time that the traction battery has the second SOC and a subsequent second time that the traction battery has the first SOC”, since the second SOC is considered an SOC after charging/open-circuited, SOCm[t] sufficiently corresponds to 2nd SOC of Wang in view of Lim, while SOCc[t] sufficiently corresponds to 1st SOC of Wang in view Lim, 1st SOC is the time when a battery would be used and discharge/charged, see further Fig. 2 and ¶’s [37-39]), the controller further uses the determined discharge current over time to estimate the battery capacity (¶0039: final SOC estimation of the battery … updates an estimated capacity of the battery).
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 Wang, in view of Gibeau, with Yao to include determining an amount of current discharged from the battery to the second controller, to operate at a time between battery capacity updates taught by Wang (Fig.5, 501). Doing so would allow the controller to continue to provide an estimated battery capacity through measured discharged current, coulomb counting, during a period when the system does not require the battery capacity update taught by Wang.
Regarding Claim 18, Wang fails to explicitly teach the second controller is further configured to detect an amount of current charged to the traction battery between a first time that the traction battery has the first SOC and a subsequent second time that the traction battery has the second SOC; and the second controller detects the capacity of the traction battery based on the first SOC, the second SOC, and the amount of current.
However, Yao teaches a controller (Fig.1, 32) configured to monitor an amount of current charged (¶0026: coulomb counting method calculates charge current over time to estimate the battery SOC) from a battery (Fig.1, 22) (examiner equates calculating discharge current over time to “between a first time that the traction battery has the second SOC and a subsequent second time that the traction battery has the first SOC”, since the second SOC is considered an SOC after charging/open-circuited, SOCm[t] sufficiently corresponds to 2nd SOC of Wang in view of Lim, while SOCc[t] sufficiently corresponds to 1st SOC of Wang in view Lim, 1st SOC is the time when a battery would be used and discharge/charged, see further Fig. 2 and ¶’s [37-39]), the controller further uses the determined charge current over time to estimate the battery capacity (¶0039: final SOC estimation of the battery … updates an estimated capacity of the battery).
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 Wang, in view of Gibeau, with Yao to include determining an amount of current charged to the battery to the second controller, to operate at a time between battery capacity updates taught by Wang (Fig.5, 501). Doing so would allow the controller to continue to provide an estimated battery capacity through measured charge current, coulomb counting, during a period when the system does not require the battery capacity update taught by Wang.
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
Prosecution Insights