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 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-4 and 9 contain quotations. Remove this usage.
Claims 6 and 16 claim “the battery swap station”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Replace with “the battery charging and swap station”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words [reduce it to 150 words or less]; it further contains exemplary and verbose language. Remove the bolded language below:
The disclosure relates to the technical field of battery charging and swapping, and in particular, to a power control method and system for a battery charging and swap station, a medium, an apparatus, and the battery charging and swap station. The disclosure is intended to solves the problem of how to implementing integrated power management of the battery charging and swap station in the case of for a plurality of bus bars. For this purpose, the battery charging and swap station in the disclosure includes a plurality of charging devices, the plurality of charging devices are divided into a plurality of device groups, and each device group is powered by one bus bar. The power control method includes: when a total power limit is less than a sum of bus bar power limits of all of the bus bars, obtaining the total power limit of the battery charging and swap station and a requested power of each device group; calculating a total requested power for the battery charging and swap station based on all of the requested powers; comparing the total requested power with the total power limit; and performing, based on a comparison result, power allocation on each device group. The disclosure can implements flexible and efficient power allocation under the power supply of the plurality of bus bars, and ensure a service capability of the battery charging and swap station.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 limitations are:
an obtaining module configured to obtain a total power limit of the battery charging and swap station and a requested power of each device group;
a calculation module configured to calculate a total requested power for the battery charging and swap station based on all of the requested powers;
a comparison module configured to compare the total requested power with the total power limit; and
a power allocation module
in claims 11-20.
Structure interpreted as the processor of ¶’s [99-102, 206-210] of the published specification in the PGPUB.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12134333. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims are narrower in scope than the instant application claims.
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 5 and 15 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 applicant claims in Claims 1 and 11: “the total power limit is less than a sum of bus bar power limits of all of the bus bars”.
The applicant claims in Claims 5 and 15: “the total power limit is equal to the sum of bus bar power limits of all of the bus bars.”.
These two requirements conflict with each other. For purposes of examination, either definition will apply for the total power limit.
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 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eger et al (USPGPN 20140084874) in view of Chen et al (USPGPN 20190263282) and Dobrzynski et al (USPGPN 20210342958; hereinafter Dobri)
Independent Claim 1, Eger teaches a power control method (Fig. 3, ¶’s [77, 109-112]) for a battery charging station (Figs. 1 & 2), wherein the battery charging station comprises a plurality of charging devices (109-112), all of the charging devices are divided into a plurality of device groups ([109 & 110, or 117] vs [111 & 112, or 119]), and each device group is powered by one bus bar alone ([104 & 105] vs [106-108], respectively),
the charging device comprises at least one of a charging pile and a battery compartment, the battery compartment is configured to charge a traction battery, and the charging pile is configured to charge a new energy vehicle (abstract, ¶’s [109-116], charging pile), and
the power control method comprises:
obtaining a total power limit of the battery charging station (¶’s [119-132, esp. 130]) and a requested power of each device group (¶’s [93, 102-104, 150-152]);
calculating a total requested power for the battery charging station based on all of the requested powers (¶’s [117, 126-128]);
comparing the total requested power with the total power limit (¶’s [117, 122, 128]); and
performing, based on a comparison result, power allocation on each device group (¶[129]), wherein the total power limit is less than a sum of bus bar power limits of all of the bus bars (¶’s [122-125], 100 of Ctrans less than 240 of 117-119).
Eger is silent to a battery charging and swap station, wherein the battery charging and swap station comprises a plurality of charging devices, all of the charging devices are divided into a plurality of device groups, and each device group is powered by one bus bar alone, wherein the charging device comprises at least one of a charging pile and a battery compartment, the battery compartment is configured to charge a traction battery, and the charging pile is configured to charge a new energy vehicle, and to advance prosecution, a more explicit comparison of the total demand/requested power with the total available power.
Dobri teaches obtaining a total power limit of the battery charging station and a requested power of each device; calculating a total requested power for the battery charging station based on all of the requested powers; comparing the total requested power with the total power limit; and performing, based on a comparison result, power allocation on each device group (¶’s [34, 35, 52, 86, 120], Fig. 10). Dobri teaches this method serves to improve the fairness of the allocation while taking into account the urgency of the user (thus improving convenience, see ¶’s [03, 34, 52, esp. 03, 34])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eger with Dobri to provide improved convenience and fairness.
Eger is silent to a battery charging and swap station, wherein the battery charging and swap station comprises a plurality of charging devices, all of the charging devices are divided into a plurality of device groups, and each device group is powered by one bus bar alone, wherein the charging device comprises at least one of a charging pile and a battery compartment, the battery compartment is configured to charge a traction battery, and the charging pile is configured to charge a new energy vehicle.
Chen teaches a battery charging and swap station, wherein the battery charging and swap station comprises a plurality of charging devices, all of the charging devices are divided into a plurality of device groups, and each device group is powered by one bus bar alone, wherein the charging device comprises at least one of a charging pile and a battery compartment, the battery compartment is configured to charge a traction battery, and the charging pile is configured to charge a new energy vehicle (Fig. 1 shows charging container which has battery rack/compartment for swapping batteries ¶’s [07, 08] and slow/rapid charge plugs for providing power of a charging pile to a vehicle ¶[06]). Chen teaches this system serves to improve the flexibility switching (¶’s [14, 23]) while also optimizing both time and space (¶’s [03, 17])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eger in view of Dobri with Chen to provide improved flexibility and optimized use of time and space.
Independent Claim 11, Eger teaches a power control system for a battery charging station (Figs. 1 & 2), where the battery charging station includes a plurality of charging devices (109-112), all of the charging devices are divided into a plurality of device groups ([109 & 110, or 117] vs [111 & 112, or 119]), and each device group is powered by one bus bar alone ([104 & 105] vs [106-108], respectively),
where the charging device includes at least one of a charging pile and a battery compartment, the battery compartment is configured to charge a traction battery, & the charging pile is configured to charge a new energy vehicle (abstract, ¶’s [109-116], charging pile), and
the power control system (¶’s [45-50] has a processor performing the functions, see 112f interpretation) includes:
an obtaining module (see 112f interpretation) configured to obtain a total power limit of the battery charging station (¶’s [119-132, esp. 130]) and a requested power of each device group (¶’s [93, 102-104, 150-152]);
a calculation module (see 112f interpretation) configured to calculate a total requested power for the battery charging station based on all of the requested powers (¶’s [117, 126-128]);
a comparison module (see 112f interpretation) configured to compare the total requested power with the total power limit (¶’s [117, 122, 128]); and
a power allocation module (see 112f interpretation) configured to perform, based on a comparison result, power allocation on each device group (¶[129]),
where the total power limit is less than a sum of bus bar power limits of all of the bus bars (¶’s [122-125], 100 of Ctrans less than 240 of 117-119).
Eger is silent to a battery charging and swap station, wherein the battery charging and swap station comprises a plurality of charging devices, all of the charging devices are divided into a plurality of device groups, and each device group is powered by one bus bar alone, wherein the charging device comprises at least one of a charging pile and a battery compartment, the battery compartment is configured to charge a traction battery, and the charging pile is configured to charge a new energy vehicle, and to advance prosecution, a more explicit comparison of the total demand/requested power with the total available power.
Dobri teaches obtaining a total power limit of the battery charging station and a requested power of each device; calculating a total requested power for the battery charging station based on all of the requested powers; comparing the total requested power with the total power limit; and performing, based on a comparison result, power allocation on each device group (¶’s [34, 35, 52, 86, 120], Fig. 10). Dobri teaches this method serves to improve the fairness of the allocation while taking into account the urgency of the user (thus improving convenience, see ¶’s [03, 34, 52, esp. 03, 34])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eger with Dobri to provide improved convenience and fairness.
Eger is silent to a battery charging and swap station, wherein the battery charging and swap station comprises a plurality of charging devices, all of the charging devices are divided into a plurality of device groups, and each device group is powered by one bus bar alone, wherein the charging device comprises at least one of a charging pile and a battery compartment, the battery compartment is configured to charge a traction battery, and the charging pile is configured to charge a new energy vehicle.
Chen teaches a battery charging and swap station, wherein the battery charging and swap station comprises a plurality of charging devices, all of the charging devices are divided into a plurality of device groups, and each device group is powered by one bus bar alone, wherein the charging device comprises at least one of a charging pile and a battery compartment, the battery compartment is configured to charge a traction battery, and the charging pile is configured to charge a new energy vehicle (Fig. 1 shows charging container which has battery rack/compartment for swapping batteries ¶’s [07, 08] and slow/rapid charge plugs for providing power of a charging pile to a vehicle ¶[06]). Chen teaches this system serves to improve the flexibility switching (¶’s [14, 23]) while also optimizing both time and space (¶’s [03, 17])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eger in view of Dobri with Chen to provide improved flexibility and optimized use of time and space.
Dependent Claims 2 and 12, the combination of Eger, Dobri, & Chen teaches the step of “performing, based on a comparison result, power allocation on each device group” comprises:
if the total requested power is greater than the total power limit, determining, based on the total power limit and a first preset allocation strategy, a pre-allocated power allocated to each device group from the total power limit;
determining, based on the pre-allocated power for each device group, an actual allocated power for each device group; and
performing, based on the actual allocated power for each device group, power allocation on each device group,
wherein the first preset allocation strategy is an equal allocation, an allocation according to a proportion of the bus bar power limit corresponding to each device group, or an allocation according to a proportion of the requested power of each device group (Eger ¶’s [113, 129, 131]; Dobri ¶’s [34, 35, 52, 86, 120], Fig. 10).
Dependent Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Eger, Dobri, and Chen teaches the step of “determining, based on the pre-allocated power for each device group, an actual allocated power for each device group” further comprises:
for each device group, taking a minimum value among the pre-allocated power, the requested power, and the bus bar power limit that are corresponding to the device group as an allocated power for the device group;
determining whether conditions that a difference between the total power limit and a sum of all allocated powers is greater than zero and there are a number of device groups with an allocated power equal to a pre-allocated power are met;
if the conditions are met, allocating the difference to the number of device groups according to a second preset allocation strategy;
updating pre-allocated powers for the number of device groups based on allocation results, and returning to re-determining the allocated power for each device group; and
if the conditions are not met, determining the actual allocated power for each device group as a current pre-allocated power,
wherein the second preset allocation strategy is an equal allocation, an allocation according to a proportion of the bus bar power limit corresponding to the number of device groups, or an allocation according to a proportion of the requested power of the number of device groups (Eger ¶’s [17-21, 66-72, 117]; Dobri ¶’s [34, 35, 52, 86, 120], Fig. 10).
Dependent Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Eger, Dobri, and Chen teaches the step of “performing, based on a comparison result, power allocation on each device group” further comprises:
if the total requested power is less than or equal to the total power limit, determining an actual allocated power for each device group as a smaller value between the requested power corresponding to the device group and the bus bar power limit (Eger ¶’s [126, 129]; Dobri ¶’s [34, 35, 52, 86, 120], Fig. 10).
Dependent Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Eger, Dobri, and Chen teaches the power control method further comprises:
obtaining the requested power of each device group; and
determining an actual allocated power for each device group as a smaller value between the requested power corresponding to the device group and the bus bar power limit,
wherein the total power limit is equal to the sum of bus bar power limits of all of the bus bars (Eger ¶’s [119-132]; Dobri ¶’s [34, 35, 52, 86, 120], Fig. 10; see 112b interpretation).
Dependent Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Eger, Dobri, and Chen teaches for each device group, the power control method further comprises:
obtaining a real-time power of the device group;
comparing the real-time power with a bus bar power limit corresponding to the device group; and
if the real-time power is greater than the bus bar power limit, controlling the power of the device group to be reduced to the bus bar power limit (Eger ¶[21] preset maximum permissible capacity means that the value is adjusted to remain below it; Dobri ¶’s [34, 35, 52, 86, 120], Fig. 10 means that the value is maintained below the capacity/limit).
Dependent Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Eger, Dobri, and Chen teaches the step of “controlling the power of the device group to be reduced to the bus bar power limit” further comprises:
calculating a difference between the real-time power and the bus bar power limit;
selecting a charging device with an operating power greater than the difference from the device group; and
controlling the operating power of the selected charging device to reduce the difference; or calculating a difference between the real-time power and the bus bar power limit; and
equally allocating the difference to all charging devices in the device group (Eger ¶[117] current maximization; Dobri ¶’s [34, 35, 52, 86, 120], Fig. 10 means that the value is maintained below the capacity/limit).
Dependent Claims 10 and 20, the combination of Eger, Dobri, and Chen teaches the power control method further comprises:
on the premise that the charging device comprises a charging pile, obtaining a communication status of the charging pile; and if there is a charging pile in a disconnected state, allocating a preset power to the charging pile (Eger ¶’s [06-09, 37-39, 93-97, 102-104] all describes the communication of load distribution, where until the command is given, the piles are understood to be disconnected, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands); and/or
on the premise that the charging device comprises a plurality of battery compartments, obtaining communication statuses of the battery compartments; and if there is a battery compartment in a disconnected state, deactivating the battery compartment and selecting a battery compartment corresponding to a battery with a highest state of charge from the remaining battery compartments to perform power allocation.
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eger e in view of Chen and Dobri, further in view of Vickery et al (USPGPN 20190207267)
Dependent Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Eger, Dobri, and Chen teaches when some device groups comprise a plurality of battery compartments, a compartment-side total requested power of each device group of the some device groups is determined in the following manner
obtaining a number N of required batteries (batteries requiring charged in Chen, corresponding to batteries in vehicles needing charge in Eger and Dobri);
respectively calculating charging requested powers of all batteries belonging to each device group in the N traction batteries, as the compartment-side total requested power of each device group (¶’s [131, 132] of Eger),
wherein the number of required batteries is determined based on a reserved battery swap order or an estimated battery swap order of the battery swap station (Chen’s batteries located in the station needing to be charged correspond to an estimated battery swap order of the station, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands).
Eger is silent to selecting N traction batteries with a highest state of charge from all of the battery compartments, wherein the number of required batteries is determined based on a reserved battery swap order or an estimated battery swap order of the battery swap station.
Vickery teaches selecting N traction batteries with a highest state of charge from all of the battery compartments, wherein the number of required batteries is determined based on a reserved battery swap order or an estimated battery swap order of the battery swap station (Fig. [1A, 6, & 8, esp. 8 items 803 & 805], ¶’s [21, 78, 137-142, 137]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by selecting the batteries with the highest voltage, the more convenient for the user since the batteries will be ready to be swapped more quickly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eger in view of Dobri and Chen with Vickery to provide improved convenience.
Dependent Claims 7 and 17, the combination of Eger, Dobri, Chen and Vickery teaches when at least two device groups of the plurality of device groups comprise a plurality of battery compartments, the power control method further comprises:
for the at least two device groups, calculating a difference between the requested powers of any two of the device groups;
determining whether the difference is within a preset difference range; and
if the difference is not within the preset difference range, replacing a traction battery with a lowest state of charge in selected traction batteries belonging to a device group with a higher requested power with a traction battery with a highest state of charge in unselected traction batteries belonging to a device group with a lower requested power (Eger ¶’s [131, 132], Chen & Vickery battery swap station,
Vickery ¶’s [21, 22, 81, 141, esp. 21 “the first energy storage device has a first SoC (e.g., 91%), and the second energy storage device has a second SoC (e.g., 94%). An SoC difference (e.g., 3%) between the first and second SoCs is smaller than an SoC threshold (e.g., 5%). In some embodiments, the method can select an energy storage device with a highest SoC as the first device, and then select another energy storage device with the same or similar SoC as the second device. For example, the SoC difference between the first device and the selected second device is the smallest among the rest of the energy storage devices positioned in the device-exchange station”, 22 “before the disclosed system releases the two selected energy storage devices, the system can verify whether the SoCs of the two batteries are lower than an SoC threshold (e.g., 90%) and then the system only provides the user with the energy storage devices having SoCs higher than the SoC threshold (or two energy storage devices having the smallest SoC difference)”],
where the difference between the cells and difference between 100%/90% SOC and the current SOC is equivalent to the required power over time, as a person having ordinary skill in the art understands).
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