DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2023, 03/06/2024, and 04/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 02/13/2023 in which claims 1-9 were amended and claims 10-11 added. No claims were canceled, therefore claims 1-11 are pending for examination below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-11 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.
With respect to claim 7, line 2, due to the preliminary amendment “the electric vehicle” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 8-11 depend from claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. [US 2014/0084679] in view of Nakao et al. [US 12,149,114] and Nagakura et al. [US 2013/0082519].
With respect to claims 1 and 7, Li discloses a system for preventing overcharging of a battery configured to supply electric power to a driving motor of an electric vehicle and an E- PTO [Fig. 2], the system comprising: an overcharge controller [152] configured to control power input to the battery [102] and the E-PTO [branch 126] and power output from the charger [136], wherein the overcharge controller comprises: a charging state detection circuit configured to check a charging state of the battery [i.e. vehicle controller includes determining of SOC, see at least par. 0049]; a current detection circuit configured to detect an input current applied to the battery with the battery in an overcharged state [197]; a power calculation circuit configured to calculate an input power based on the input current [par. 0079-0081], and a power reduction request circuit configured to request the charger to output a reduced charging power [i.e. the interface is “controlled to provide average power” in a dynamic manner by the onboard conversion device, to “ensure a battery or a battery pack of the onboard energy device will not be over-charged”]. However, Li does not explicitly disclose calculating an average input power based on the input power and a detection time, and to calculate an amount of reduction in power for the charger to reduce from a charging power based on the average input power and reducing the power by subtracting the calculated amount from the power required by the E-PTO.
First, Nakao relates to vehicle battery control and teaches calculating average input powers [see at least Fig. 15 for, during a time window, calculating current/voltage moving average units] for the purpose of applying an upper limit value on a battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Li to include the average value calculating unit(s) in the battery system as taught by Nakao for the benefit of preventing over-charging of a battery as explicitly stated by Nakao [abstract].
Furthermore, Nagakura et al. relates to a battery charging system and teaches calculating an amount of reduction in power for the charger to reduce from a charging power based on the input power and reducing the power by a difference in the calculated amount from the power required by a load [see Fig. 4; which denotes a method of, after checking to see if a battery is overcharged at S4, obtaining an allowable power Plim and then limiting the supply power, including routing power to a load].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Li as applied above to have the request/command for a reduction in power based on the calculated values for the benefit of preventing over-charging of a battery as suggested by Nagakura [par. 0039].
With respect to claim 2, Li as applied above further discloses receiving the charging power reduction request and outputting a reduced charging power by inputting the reduced charging power only to the E-PTO [i.e. the battery is provided with a switch 104 that when turned off during over-charging necessitates power cannot flow to the battery anymore and instead to the PTO branch 126], and further the modification in view of Nagakura further teaches supplying power from the battery in the overcharging state to make up for a shortfall in power of the E-PTO to consume power from the overcharged battery by outputting a normal charging power again if power from the overcharged battery is consumed and the battery is not in the overcharging state, wherein the outputting of the reduced charging power and the outputting of the normal charging power are repeated based on the detected charging state of the battery [Fig. 4 of Nagakura as noted above shows the request of load power at step S2, and Fig. 7 shows the load consuming power over the allowable charging power of the battery during charging].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to further modify Li such that the power is controlled to/from the battery as taught by Nagakura for the benefit of preventing over-charging of a battery in a manner that promotes energy conservation (i.e. using the overcharged power in the battery).
With respect to claim 3, Li further discloses wherein the detecting of the charging state of the battery comprises: confirming the overcharging state of the battery and detecting and measuring an overcharging current input to the battery in the confirming of the overcharging of the battery [via current detector 197, also note the SOC determination cited in par. 0035-0036, 0049].
With respect to claims 4 and 9, Li as modified above further discloses wherein the calculating of the amount of reduction in output power comprises: calculating an overcharge power based on the detected overcharging current input [via Li’s current detector 197]; calculating the average input power based on the calculated overcharge power and a detection time of the overcharging current input [i.e. see Nakao as detailed above for using power averaging]; and calculating the amount of reduction in output power to request from the charger based on the calculated average input power, wherein the amount of reduction in output power is greater than the average input power [i.e. see Nagakura’s power reduction method as detailed above, note when a switch is activated to cut power due to overcharging/full charge then that is the maximum amount of power that can reduced to the battery (100%)].
With respect to claim 5, Li as modified above further discloses wherein the requesting of a reduction in charging power includes requesting the charger to output the reduced charging power obtained by subtracting the calculated amount of reduction in output power from a power required by the E-PTO [Nagakura teaches the request for power to supply the load is limited to battery allowable power where the control distributes power from the external power source between the battery and load in a state of maintaining the power limitation].
With respect to claim 6, Nagakura as applied above teaches comparing the battery state to a threshold “near the fully-charged state” but does not explicitly recite specifically the claimed 99%-101% threshold. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed thresholds since it have been determined that finding an optimum range/value involves only routine skill in the art. 100% SOC known in the art to equate to a fully-charged battery and therefore a battery with 101% would be considered over-charged. The benefit to selecting the specified threshold would be to prevent over-charging in the battery by catching the overcharged condition immediately (i.e. at 101% instead of 110% for example) and thereby preventing future long term damage/degradation to the battery.
With respect to claim 8, Li further discloses wherein the overcharge controller is a component of a Battery Management System (BMS) designed integrally with the battery or a component of a Vehicle Control Unit (VCU) [see Fig. 2].
With respect to claim 10, Li further discloses an electric vehicle comprising the system of claim 7 [abstract].
With respect to claim 11, Li further discloses the battery configured to store electric energy supplied from the charger; the driving motor configured to be driven by the electric energy from the battery; the E-PTO configured to receive the electric energy from the charger or the battery and to supply power to electronic equipment of the electric vehicle related to operations other than driving [Fig. 2].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859