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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant claims “charge rate”. The plain meaning of charge rate is the rate of charging, i.e. current level, or C-rate [1C=1 hour to fully recharge battery from empty using constant current]. ¶[03] of the published specification has a different meaning, SOC. Emend these claims to the more commonly understood meaning of the term, state of charge for improved clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because 201 in Figs. [1, 12] lack clear symbol text
Part numbers in Fig. 1 lack legend to clearly identify their parts.
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.
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:
Battery Management Unit
Diagnostic Charge recommendation determination unit
Diagnostic Charge execution determination unit
in claims 1-10 (interpreted as software part of the controller claimed in Claim 1, and/or one or more controllers working with the controller claimed in claim 1)
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 § 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 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al (USPGNPN 20120126744) in view of Alexander (USPGPN 20170288418) and Tsurutani (USPGPN 20200101865; hereinafter Tsuru).
Independent Claim 1, Kuroda teaches an electric powered working machine (vehicle, see ¶’s [23, 138, 159-161]) with a secondary battery ([114, 214, 414, 614] in Figs. [3, 8, 12, 14], performing methods of Figs. [2, 4-7, 9, 10, 15, 16, esp. 5 & 9), comprising:
a battery management unit that manages the secondary battery ([112, 1182, 110, 102] of Fig. 3; [202, 208, 210, 212, 2181, 2182] in Fig. 8; [402, 408, 410, 412, 418] in Fig. 12; [612, 608, 602, 6181] in Fig. 14); and
a controller (118 in Fig. 3, 218 in Fig. 8, 500/518 in Fig. 12, 618 in Fig. 14) that controls a normal charge (normal) or a diagnostic charge (slow, ¶’s [10, 87-90], Figs. 5 & 9),
wherein the controller includes:
a diagnostic charge recommendation determination unit that determines whether to recommend the diagnostic charge or not based on an operation history of the secondary battery output from the battery management unit (112f interpretation, ¶’s [10, 98, 122] says the charging history is used in recommending a type of charging); and
a diagnostic charge execution determination unit that determines whether to execute the diagnostic charge or not based on a state of the secondary battery output from the battery management unit (s202 of Fig. 9), an estimated charge period necessary for the diagnostic charge (s202-s206 of Fig. 9), and a site work plan including a work start time (s202, s204, s214 of Fig. 9), when the diagnostic charge is determined to be recommended (Figs. 5 & 9, esp. 9, where 9 has site work plan decided in 214).
Kuroda fails to explicitly teach a normal charge without a rest period during charging or a diagnostic charge provided with a rest period during charging for the secondary battery, and that the non-quick charge mode is a diagnostic charge mode.
Tsuru teaches a charge mode which is a diagnostic charge mode (¶’s [5-52, 60-64, 66, 107, 108, with 50/51 on state of the battery, 60/61 on operation history of the battery, 107/108 on charging duration and working schedule for longer/less-rapid charging] along with Figs. [4-7, esp. 7] and abstract describes a system where diagnostic charging may be performed periodically to improve the reliability of the battery capacity)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuroda with Tsuru to provide improved reliability.
Kuroda fails to explicitly teach a normal charge without a rest period during charging or a diagnostic charge provided with a rest period during charging for the secondary battery
Alexander teaches a normal charge without a rest period during charging or a diagnostic charge provided with a rest period during charging for the secondary battery (¶[62] states that the second/smart mode involves a pause between the two phases;
¶[75] states that there is a determination of whether there is sufficient time between the two phases in deciding to use the faster-first-default mode of charging operation rather than the slower-smart-second mode of charging operation;
See further ¶’s [28, 63-74]). Alexander teaches this method serves to provide optimum charging rates while also providing quick charging when required (¶’s [26, 28, 61, 63]) in order to extend life when timeliness is not required.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuroda in view of Tsuru with Alexander to provide optimized charging and improved charging speed and life.
Dependent Claim 3, Kuroda is silent to wherein the battery management unit calculates each of charge rates before and after charging based on the operation history of the secondary battery in the diagnostic charge or the normal charge, and calculates each of a full charge capacity of the secondary battery or a degradation level of the secondary battery capacity based on the calculated charge rates before and after charging and a charged electric charge amount of the secondary battery.
Tsuru teaches the battery management unit calculates each of charge rates before and after charging based on the operation history of the secondary battery in the diagnostic charge or the normal charge, and calculates each of a full charge capacity of the secondary battery or a degradation level of the secondary battery capacity based on the calculated charge rates before and after charging and a charged electric charge amount of the secondary battery (¶’s [51, 52, 60-64, 107, 108, esp. 51, 52]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuroda in view of Alexander with Tsuru to provide optimized charging and improved charging speed and life.
Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Kuroda, Tsuru, and Alexander teaches the diagnostic charge recommendation determination unit determines to recommend the diagnostic charge when a difference between a current time and a date of starting use of the secondary battery or a difference between the current time and a date of performing a previous diagnostic charge becomes equal to or more than a preliminarily determined time period (Kuroda: s104 in Fig. 5 and s204 of Fig. 9;
Alexander: ¶[75] states that deciding between modes is based on the time).
Dependent Claims 6 and 7, the combination of Kuroda, Tsuru, and Alexander teaches
wherein the diagnostic charge recommendation determination unit determines to recommend the diagnostic charge when a difference between an average value of latest points in the degradation level of the secondary battery capacity in the normal charge and an initial value of the degradation level of the secondary battery capacity or the degradation level of the secondary battery capacity in the previous diagnostic charge becomes equal to or more than a preliminarily determined threshold ([with respect to] wrt Claim 6) and wherein the diagnostic charge recommendation determination unit determines to recommend the diagnostic charge when a difference between a charge rate range during operation and a charge rate range during charging becomes equal to or less than a preliminarily determined threshold, the charge rate range during operation is calculated based on an initial value of the secondary battery full charge capacity or the degradation level of the secondary battery capacity, or the secondary battery full charge capacity or the degradation level of the secondary battery in the previous diagnostic charge, and the charge rate range during charging is calculated based on the operation history of the secondary battery in the normal charge (wrt Claim 7;
Tsuru teaches repeating the diagnostic charging operation after a certain period of time/cycles and reliability-index-decreased below a threshold, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to similarly be applicable to claims 6 and 7, [KSR B] since a number of cycles and the SOH/deterioration/capacity level being below a threshold is very similar to time/cycles/reliability-index-decreased below a threshold, with the same result, that the diagnostic/slow-charging process be repeated based on it failing the level).
Dependent Claim 8, the combination of Kuroda, Tsuru, and Alexander teaches the diagnostic charge execution determination unit determines to execute the diagnostic charge when a remaining charge available period calculated based on the current time and the site work plan is equal to or more than an estimated charge period necessary for the diagnostic charge and a change amount of the charge rate before and after the diagnostic charge is equal to or more than a predetermined value (Tsuru ¶[52] describes the mandatory change amount of the charge rate being equal to or more than a predetermined value; Tsuru ¶’s [62-64, esp. 64] describes the mandatory amount of time for the diagnostic charge mode being satisfied; Alexander and Kuroda teaches the remaining elements, as described above for Claim 1).
Dependent Claim 10, the combination of Kuroda, Tsuru, and Alexander teaches a monitor display device that displays a determination result of the diagnostic charge recommendation determination unit and a determination result of the diagnostic charge execution determination unit, and displays a screen for selecting the normal charge or the diagnostic charge (Kuroda: ¶’s [76, 90], Fig. 4;
Alexander: ¶’s [50-55, 75, esp. 75]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of Alexander and Tsuru, further in view of Inoue et al (JP 2013070534 A)
Dependent Claim 2, the combination of Kuroda, Tsuru, and Alexander teaches the diagnostic charge is a charge mode provided with respective preset rest period[s] before and after charging (as cited above for Alexander preset period before charging starts if enough time needed, preset period between phases)
Kuroda is silent to the rest periods of the diagnostic charge are set based on a temperature and a polarization time constant of the secondary battery depending on a charge rate.
Inoue teaches the rest periods of the diagnostic charge are set based on a temperature and a polarization time constant of the secondary battery depending on a charge rate (¶’s [37, 39, 47, 69], see further ¶’s [29, 31, 35] for further context of analogousness). Inoue teaches this serves to reduce heat generation [and thus prevent safety issues due to heat damage=improving safety] and improved accuracy (¶[08]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuroda in view of [Alexander and Tsuru] with Inoue to provide improved accuracy and safety.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of Alexander and Tsuru, further in view of Ha et al (USPGPN 20190131817)
Dependent Claim 5, Kuroda fails to explicitly teach the diagnostic charge recommendation determination unit determines to recommend the diagnostic charge when a difference between an initial value of the degradation level of the secondary battery capacity or the degradation level of the secondary battery capacity calculated in the previous diagnostic charge and a current degradation level of the secondary battery capacity calculated based on the operation history after the previous diagnostic charge using a degradation prediction function becomes equal to or more than a preliminarily determined threshold.
Ha teaches the diagnostic charge recommendation determination unit determines to recommend the diagnostic charge when a difference between an initial value of the degradation level of the secondary battery capacity or the degradation level of the secondary battery capacity calculated in the previous diagnostic charge and a current degradation level of the secondary battery capacity calculated based on the operation history after the previous diagnostic charge using a degradation prediction function becomes equal to or more than a preliminarily determined threshold (112f interpretation, ¶[88] along with Figs. [3, 5] states that the recommendation is to use a lower charge level/limit-rapid-charging if the battery history shows the cycle number-degradation-prediction-function shows the difference between the initial level [0 or 1 cycle] and the current level is greater than or equal to a threshold/predetermined-number-of-cycles, where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that FCC[full charge capacity], cycle life, and degradation level are analogous terms, and Fig. 3 showing how the rate/current of battery charging is changed based on the FCC of the battery). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by limiting current when the battery is aged/low-health serves to prevent the battery from suddenly breaking, causing over-heating/inflammation/explosion/gassing/short-circuiting, thus this process serves to improve safety (¶[02], official notice further taken)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuroda in view of [Alexander and Tsuru] with Ha to provide improved safety.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of Alexander and Tsuru, further in view of Zhang et al (USPGPN 20180019611)
Dependent Claim 9, Kuroda is silent to in a case where the remaining charge available period is smaller than the estimated charge period necessary for the diagnostic charge, the diagnostic charge execution determination unit determines to execute the diagnostic charge when the temperature of the secondary battery becomes higher than a target temperature to be set by a warm-up operation.
Zhang teaches in a case where the remaining charge available period is smaller than the estimated charge period necessary for the diagnostic charge, the diagnostic charge execution determination unit determines to execute the diagnostic charge when the temperature of the secondary battery becomes higher than a target temperature to be set by a warm-up operation (¶’s [137, 192] describes that the battery is charged in the slow/diagnostic mode when the temperature is higher than a target/threshold temperature regardless of time required, thus in combination with Kuroda in view of Alexander and Tsuru, teaching the required limitations). Zhang teaches this method serves to improve reliability and safety (¶’s [11, 13, 15, 138])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuroda in view of [Alexander and Tsuru] with Zhang to provide improved reliability and safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 5712722312. 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 T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859