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 .
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 21, 31, and 36 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. The claims recite “feed-forward demand current” however, the term “feed-forward demand current” is not specifically defined in the specification. For purposes of examination the examiner believes the term “feed-forward current” to be the same.
Claims 23, 27, 33, 35, and 38 all include the use of a “sum”. While some of the claims have the “sum” defined, other claims only refer to “the sum” which is unclear as to which “sum” is being referenced. For example claim 21’s “sum” is the feed-forward demand current and the current feedback, but in claim 22 the “sum” is a battery charge power limit of the battery and an accessory power draw of an accessory, then claim 23 refers to “the smaller of the sum” but it is unclear if it is the sum of claim 21 or claim 22. Similar language is used for the remaining claims 27, 33, 35, and 38
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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. US 20120091953 in view of Hand et al. US 20180050603.
With regards to claim 21, 31, and 36 Paryani discloses, a method to charge an electric vehicle [Fig 1 vehicle 110] having
a battery [energy storage system 115] the method comprising:
connecting the battery to a charger [EVSE 130],
wherein the electric vehicle includes a controller [BMS 120] communicatively connected to the battery and the charger when the battery is connected to the charger; and
by the powertrain controller: determine a feed-forward demand current [¶22 “Process 200, includes a first control loop feedback mechanism 205 and a second control loop feedback mechanism 210. These mechanisms are represented herein as proportional-integral (PI) controllers, though other controllers could be used as well (e.g., proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers and other controllers). First feedback mechanism 205 uses a difference between a target voltage for energy storage system 115 and a maximum voltage (feedback) to determine a reference current. The reference current ranges between a maximum DC discharge current (iBatDChgTarget) and a DC charging target current (iBatChgTarget)”];
receive a measured battery current [current sensor 125] indicative of a current received by the battery from the charger;
determine a current feedback [Fig 2 iDC feeding back] based on an integral [Fig 2 PIs 205 and 210] of a difference between the measured battery current and the feed-forward demand current [¶23 “Second feedback mechanism 210 compares the reference current to the actual DC charging current provided to energy storage system 115 (as measured by sensor 125)”]; and
determine a target current [Fig 2 iBatChgTarget and ¶12 “adjust the actual DC charging current based upon a maximum for the input AC current/AC power, a difference between the voltage level, and a preset maximum voltage level target of the energy storage system, and a difference between a target DC charging current and the actual DC charging current”]; and
command the charger [¶23 “This reference current is provided to second feedback mechanism 210. Second feedback mechanism 210 compares the reference current to the actual DC charging current provided to energy storage system 115 (as measured by sensor 125) to establish a control signal that is a command AC control request (line current or line power) provided to charging system 105”] to supply the target current [Fig 2 iBatChgTarget] to the electric vehicle [vehicle 110].
Paryani fails to explicitly disclose an electric traction system and wherein the electric vehicle includes a powertrain controller and determine a target current based on the sum of the feed-forward demand current and the current feedback.
However, Hand discloses, an electric traction system [¶22 “An output of the battery pack is connected via a high voltage bus to an inverter which converts the direct current (DC) power supplied by the battery pack to alternating current (AC) power for operating a traction motor in accordance with commands from a transmission control module (TCM)”] and wherein the electric vehicle includes a powertrain controller [¶22 “transmission control module (TCM)”] and determine a target current based on the sum of the feed-forward demand current and the current feedback [Fig 4 feed forward section 50 and feedback control section 53 which is summed at adder 52].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the charging systems of Paryani and Hand to include a powertrain controller with the summation functions in order to more efficiently regulate the system power and improve the life of the battery.
Claims 31 and 36 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 21 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 22, 32, 37, the combination discloses, the method of claim 21, wherein the feed-forward demand current [Hand Fig 4 feedforward section 50] comprises
a power demand [Hand ¶31 Iin=(Vdes*Iout)/((Vin*n) where the feedforward control is based on the power demand Vdes*Iout] divided by a battery voltage [the battery voltage or Vin which can be multiplied by the efficiency n or a constant], and
the power demand is based on a sum of a battery charge power limit of the battery and an accessory power draw of an accessory [Hand ¶31 “output current Iout is the sum of all the individual output currents” which is comprised of both the battery limit and the loads/accessories that are connected to the bus] electrically connected to a high voltage bus [Hand fig 1 high voltage bus 14/15] of the electric vehicle [Fig 1 vehicle 11].
Claims 32 and 37 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 22 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claims 23, 33, 38 the combination discloses, the method of claim 22, wherein the target current is the smaller of the sum and a charging hardware limit [Paryani ¶10 “setting the control signal at a value ranging between a maximum DC discharging current and a maximum DC charging current derived from an available real-time AC current, power, or what is appropriate for the battery” and Hand ¶29 “the target total current is limited to some predetermined maximum value”3].
Claims 33 and 38 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 23 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 24 the combination discloses, the method of claim 22, wherein the accessory is a reporting accessory [Paryani ¶20 “Preferred embodiments of the present invention use the control pilot pin which is a communication line that coordinates charging level between an EV and charger. Other control pilot signaling protocols are possible and embodiments of the present invention may be configured for operation with these control pilot signaling protocols as well” which disclose connected accessories that encompass “reporting” and Hand ¶10 “In order to maintain the desired output voltage without degrading the allocated current too much or for too long, this system must update the commanded current to each converter quite quickly. A fast response time is needed because output load demands on the low-voltage bus (e.g., power steering, headlights, radio, etc.) change very quickly and unpredictably since many can be switched on or off at any time by the vehicle occupants” disclosing accessories which reasonably read on the “reporting” as they communicate with the power system].
With regards to claims 25 and 34 the combination discloses, the method of claim 23, wherein the powertrain controller includes a proportional-integral module [Paryani PI controllers 205 and 210 and Hand feedback control section 53] operable to determine the current feedback [Paryani iACControl, battery management system 120] based on the integral of the difference [¶23 “Second feedback mechanism 210 compares the reference current to the actual DC charging current provided to energy storage system 115 (as measured by sensor 125) to establish a control signal”] as a function of a proportional value and to output a current feedback value indicative of the current feedback [¶22 “Process 200, includes a first control loop feedback mechanism 205 and a second control loop feedback mechanism 210. These mechanisms are represented herein as proportional-integral (PI) controllers, though other controllers could be used as well (e.g., proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers and other controllers). First feedback mechanism 205 uses a difference between a target voltage for energy storage system 115 and a maximum voltage (feedback) to determine a reference current. The reference current ranges between a maximum DC discharge current (iBatDChgTarget) and a DC charging target current (iBatChgTarget)”].
Claim 34 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 25 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 26 the combination discloses, the method of claim 25, wherein the powertrain controller determines the target current [Paryani ¶10 “a target charging current for the energy storage system”] based on the sum of the feed-forward demand current [¶19 “Sensor 125 measures actual DC charging current provided to energy storage system 115 from charging system 105”] and the current feedback value [¶22 above].
With regards to claim 27 the combination discloses, the method of claim 26, wherein the powertrain controller sets the current feedback to zero [Paryani ¶23 “For systems operating only in the first operational mode, the design may be simplified by setting the discharge parameters (i.e., iBatDChgTarget and iACDischarge) to zero”] if the charging hardware limit is less than the sum [¶10 “setting the control signal at a value ranging between a maximum DC discharging current and a maximum DC charging current derived from an available real-time AC current, power, or what is appropriate for the batter”].
With regards to claim 28 the combination discloses, a powertrain controller [Paryani fig 1 BMS 120 and Hand Fig 1 controller 25] to control charging of an electric vehicle [Paryani fig 1 vehicle 100 and Hand fig 1 vehicle 11] having a battery operable to power an electric traction system [Paryani fig 1 energy storage system 115 and Hand fig 1 battery pack 12 which both power their respective vehicles systems], the powertrain controller comprising charging logic operable to implement a method according claim 21 [See rejection of claim 21].
With regards to claim 29 the combination discloses, an electric vehicle [Paryani fig 1 vehicle 100 and Hand fig 1 vehicle 11] comprising: an electric traction system [Hand ¶22 “a traction motor in accordance with commands from a transmission control module (TCM)”]; a battery connected to power the electric traction system [Paryani fig 1 energy storage system 115 and Hand fig 1 battery pack 12 which both power their respective vehicles systems]; and a powertrain controller [Paryani fig 1 BMS 120 and Hand controller 25] comprising charging logic operable to implement a method according claim 21 [See rejection of claim 21].
With regards to claims 30 and 40 the combination discloses, the electric vehicle of claim 29, further comprising a reporting accessory [Paryani ¶20 above and Hand ¶10 above both disclosing “reporting accessories”] communicatively coupled to the powertrain controller to provide an accessory power draw to the powertrain controller [Paryani ¶24 “Energy may be drawn from energy storage system 115 to help power devices and processes outside of EV 110” and ¶20 “Preferred embodiments of the present invention use the control pilot pin which is a communication line that coordinates charging level between an EV and charger. Other control pilot signaling protocols are possible and embodiments of the present invention may be configured for operation with these control pilot signaling protocols as well” which disclose connected accessories that encompass “reporting”].
With regards to claim 35 the combination discloses, the powertrain controller of claim 34, wherein at least one of: the charging logic is operable to determine the target current [Paryani ¶10 “a target charging current for the energy storage system”] based on the sum of the feed-forward demand current [¶19 above] and the current feedback value [¶22 above] and the powertrain controller sets the current feedback to zero [Paryani ¶23 “For systems operating only in the first operational mode, the design may be simplified by setting the discharge parameters (i.e., iBatDChgTarget and iACDischarge) to zero”] if the charging hardware limit is less than the sum [¶10 “setting the control signal at a value ranging between a maximum DC discharging current and a maximum DC charging current derived from an available real-time AC current, power, or what is appropriate for the battery”].
With regards to claim 39 the combination discloses, the electric vehicle of claim 36, wherein at least one of the charging logic includes a proportional-integral module [Paryani PI controllers 205 and 210 and Hand Fig 4 and ¶30 “controller 25 can be a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller”] operable to determine the current feedback [Paryani iACControl, battery management system 120 and Hand feedback control section 53] based on the integral of the difference [¶23 “Second feedback mechanism 210 compares the reference current to the actual DC charging current provided to energy storage system 115 (as measured by sensor 125) to establish a control signal” and Hand fig 4 integral processing block 62] as a function of a proportional value and to output a current feedback value indicative of the current feedback [¶22 “Process 200, includes a first control loop feedback mechanism 205 and a second control loop feedback mechanism 210. These mechanisms are represented herein as proportional-integral (PI) controllers, though other controllers could be used as well (e.g., proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers and other controllers). First feedback mechanism 205 uses a difference between a target voltage for energy storage system 115 and a maximum voltage (feedback) to determine a reference current. The reference current ranges between a maximum DC discharge current (iBatDChgTarget) and a DC charging target current (iBatChgTarget)”] and the charging logic is operable to determine the target current [¶10 “a target charging current for the energy storage system”] based on the sum of the feed-forward demand current [¶19 above] and the current feedback value [¶22 above and Hand Fig 4 feed forward section 50 and feedback control section 53 which is summed at adder 52].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/TAELOR KIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859