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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 fails to label the vertical (y-axis) as the voltage/current. 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 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.
Claims 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2012/0306436), hereinafter Nakamura, in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2012/0306450), hereinafter Nakayama.
As to claims 7 and 10 Nakamura discloses in figure 1, a charging system for a vehicle, including [see ¶0003 and ¶0071] :
a charger [charger (26) and ¶0024]in electronic communication with at least one control unit; and a battery management system (BMS) [the BMS (20); see ¶0024], wherein the charger is configured to supply constant energy in constant current mode to at least one battery for a pre-determined duration [ see figure 4, constant charging time or period is calculated based on SOC values; see how TC1 and TC2 are calculated constant charging time; see ¶0024] , and the charger is configured to supply energy in a constant voltage mode (CV) [noted that constant voltage period is disclosed; see ¶0031]; wherein the BMS is configured to determine a charging mode of the charger [the CPU (30) of the BMS (20) sends signals to the charger (20) to control the charging process; see ¶0026 and ¶0033-0035]
Nakamura does not disclose explicitly, constant current charging until a state-of-charge (SOC) of the at least one battery is less than a pre-determined battery state of charge (BSOC), constant voltage charging when the SOC of the at least one battery is more than or equal to the pre-determined BSOC the at least one control unit is configured to monitor the SOC continuously; and wherein the charger is configured to supply energy in the constant voltage mode (CV) when the SOC of the at least one battery is more than the pre- determined BSOC and the charger is configured to stop charging when the SOC is equal to full charge capacity of the at least one battery.
Nakayama discloses in figure 1. constant current charging until a state-of-charge (SOC) of the at least one battery is less than a pre-determined battery state of charge (BSOC) [charging battery with constant charging until the battery reaches change=point state of charge; see ¶0080 and ¶0081], constant voltage charging when the SOC of the at least one battery is more than or equal to the pre-determined BSOC the at least one control unit is configured to monitor the SOC continuously [integrated circuit SOC of battery to determine if battery reaches change-point state of charge or full state of charge] ; and wherein the charger is configured to supply energy in the constant voltage mode (CV) when the SOC of the at least one battery is more than the pre- determined BSOC and the charger is configured to stop charging when the SOC is equal to full charge capacity of the at least one battery [see ¶0200].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nakamura’s apparatus and charge the battery in constant charging and constant voltage charging modes with a predetermined time or period as taught by Nakayama in order to improve the charging process of the battery and the accuracy of estimation of the remaining capacity of the battery.
As to claim 12, Nakayama discloses in figure 1, wherein the full charge capacity of the at least one battery is a predetermined standard maximum charge value equal to 100 percent state of charge of the at least one battery [see figure 9, SOC-end is disclosed].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use 100% SOC value at charge end point in Nakamura’s apparatus as taught by Nakayama in order to protect battery from thermal runaway.
As to claims 10 and 12, the method merely recites the steps of using the elements of the device as disclosed above and since each element must be present to perform the steps, the method as claimed would be inherent in view of the device as disclosed by Nakayama
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, in view of Nakayama, and in view of Machine Translation of CN102157759A, hereinafter 759’.
As to claim 8, Nakamura in combination with Nakayama discloses the claim inventions except, wherein the pre-determined BSOC is a parameter for transitioning from constant current mode to constant voltage mode (CV) and a value of the pre-determined BSOC is in range from 95 percent to 99.5 percent of rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery.
759’ discloses in figure 1, wherein the pre-determined BSOC of the at least one battery is in a range of 95 percent to 99.5 percent of rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery [the constant charging current mode transitions into constant charging voltage when battery rated voltage is 95% or more; see ¶0011].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nakamura’s Charing and set charging transition point at 95% of rated battery voltage as taught by 759’ in order to avoid battery damage due to overcharging.
As to claim 11, Nakayama discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the pre-determined BSOC of the at least one battery is in a range of 95 percent to 99.5 percent of rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery.
759’ discloses in figure 1, wherein the pre-determined BSOC of the at least one battery is in a range of 95 percent to 99.5 percent of rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery [the constant charging current mode transitions into constant charging voltage when battery rated voltage is 95^ or more; see ¶0011].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nakamura’s Charing and set charging transition point at 95% of rated battery voltage as taught by 759’ in order to avoid battery damage due to overcharging.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use appropriate SOC value for charging mode turning point in Nakamura’s apparatus in order to protect battery over-charging/ over-heating, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant' s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. constant current charging mode, constant voltage mode, charging mode transition point, charger circuit, constant current charging time, constant voltage charging time, voltage detector, voltage gradient calculator, battery life judging means etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Nakayama, and in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 6,329,791), hereinafter Yokoyama.
As to claim 9 , neither Nakamura nor Nakayama discloses, wherein constant voltage of the charger corresponds to a rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery.
Yokoyama discloses in figure 1, wherein constant voltage of the charger corresponds to a rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery [see Abstract, Col. 2, lines 55-60; Col. 4, lines 36-39].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention n was made to use rated voltage of the battery during constant charging voltage of Nakamura’s as taught by Yokoyama in order to avoid battery deterioration due to higher charging voltage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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 A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859