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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first switch” and “second switch” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is unclear from the drawings where/how these switches integrate into the design making it difficult to understand the claimed invention No new matter should be entered.
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 2, Box 216, “Looping to 2002” should be –Looping to 202—
Fig. 3, Box 302, Line 5, “conductor top-off controller” should be –supercapacitor top-off controller—
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: For example: Page 12, Para. [0038], Line 6: Remove the second occurrence of “through the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morimoto et al. U.S. PGPub 2002/0109407 A1 (hereinafter Morimoto).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Morimoto teaches a system and method for powering an electric vehicle (Morimoto, Fig. 7, Element 2; Abstract and Para. [0021], “vehicle”), the system/method comprising: at least one electrochemical battery (Morimoto, Fig. 7, Element 24; Para. [0023]); at least one supercapacitor top-off battery (Morimoto, Fig. 7, Element 26; Para. [0023], Lines 10-11, “capacitor … is a sub-battery”. Morimoto uses the term “sub-battery” for the capacitor, which serves the same function as the claimed “top-off battery”.); a first switch disposed on a first electrical path between the at least one electrochemical battery and the electric vehicle (Morimoto, Fig. 7, Element 28, “Switching Means” made up of switching sections 48-1 and 48-2; Paras. [0026] – [0028]. It appears switch 46, illustrated in Fig. 6, is the equivalent of the claimed “first switch”, but it is difficult to know for sure due to the complexity of the switching of Morimoto and the vagueness of the claimed invention as illustrated in the drawings, particularly Fig. 1. See Drawing Objection above.), the first switch to connect or disconnect the at least one electrochemical battery to or from the electric vehicle (Morimoto, Fig. 6, Element 46; Para. [0025], Lines 18-22, “voltage control switch”, and Fig. 7 where the battery 24 is separated from the electric vehicle 2 by the switching means 28. Note, to alleviate any confusion of Morimoto as understood by the examiner, the electrical load 30 is always connected to the battery; however, the connection with the electric vehicle is switched, i.e. connected or disconnected, via the switching means 28.); a second switch disposed on a second electrical path between the at least one supercapacitor top-off battery and the electric vehicle (Morimoto, Fig. 7, Element 28, “Switching Means” made up of switching sections 48-1 and 48-2; Paras. [0026] – [0028]. It appears switches 58-1 and 58-2, illustrated in Fig. 4, makes up the equivalent of the claimed “second switch”, but it is difficult to know for sure due to the complexity of the switching of Morimoto and the vagueness of the claimed invention as illustrated in the drawings, particularly Fig. 1. See Drawing Objection above.), the second switch to connect or disconnect the at least one supercapacitor top-off battery to or from the electric vehicle (Morimoto, Para. [0023], Lines 10-16 and 19-21); and a controller communicatively coupled to the first switch and the second switch (Morimoto, Fig. 7, Element 20; Para. [0023], “power generating and control system”), wherein the controller, responsive to a first switching condition, disconnects the at least one electrochemical battery from the electric vehicle via the first switch and connects the at least one supercapacitor top-off battery to the electric vehicle via the second switch to power the electric vehicle (Morimoto, Paras. [0052] – [0054], “the capacitor supplies electric power”), wherein the at least one electrochemical battery (Morimoto, Fig. 4, Element 24) is coupled to an generator (Morimoto, Fig. 4, Element 10, “alternator”, and Para. [0072], “which is a generator”) of the electric vehicle via a third electrical path (Morimoto, Fig. 4, via diode 54; Para. [0026]), such that the at least one electrochemical battery is recharged by the generator (Morimoto, Para. [0023], Lines 7-9, “battery … continuously connected to the alternator”, and Lines 17-19, “battery … connected with the alternator at all times in every operating state”, and Para. [0052], Line 14, “battery is in the charged state”) while the electric vehicle is powered by the at least one supercapacitor top-off battery (Morimoto, Paras. [0052] – [0054], “the capacitor supplies electric power”).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, The teaching of the Morimoto reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 and 11 respectively. Furthermore, Morimoto teaches wherein the controller, responsive to second switching condition, disconnects the at least one supercapacitor top-off battery from the electric vehicle via the second switch and reconnects the at least one electrochemical battery to the electric vehicle via the first switch (Morimoto, Fig. 3; Paras. [0025] – [0026] and [0062]).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. U.S. PGPub 2002/0109407 A1 (hereinafter Morimoto) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above respectively, and further in view of Snyder et al. U.S. PGPub 2009/0212626 A1 (hereinafter Snyder).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, The teaching of the Morimoto reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 and 11 respectively, but does not explicitly teach further comprising at least one current tester disposed on one or more of the first electrical path or the second electrical path, the at least one current tester to measure current flow between the at least one electrochemical battery or the at least one supercapacitor top-off battery, respectively, and the electric vehicle.
Snyder, however, teaches further comprising at least one current tester disposed on one or more of the first electrical path or the second electrical path, the at least one current tester to measure current flow between the at least one electrochemical battery or the at least one supercapacitor top-off battery, respectively, and the electric vehicle (Snyder, Fig. 1C, Element 170, “Sensor Data”, and Fig. 2, Element 270, “Voltage Sensor(s) Inputs”; Paras. [0017], [0078], [0091] and [0096]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Morimoto is silent as to what information the controller uses to make the logic decisions of switching between sources, Morimoto would inherently incorporate some type of conventional parameter monitoring commonly understood in the art. The parameter monitoring taught by Snyder, for determining system parameters such as current, voltage, temperature, etc., teaches one of the many conventional parameter monitoring circuits utilized in the art for monitoring and controlling the charging of a power source of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Snyder, to monitor and control the power generating controller of Morimoto.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, The combined teaching of the Morimoto and Snyder references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 2/1 and 12/11 respectively. Furthermore, Morimoto teaches the first switching condition (Morimoto, Paras. [0052] – [0054], “the capacitor supplies electric power”), and Snyder teaches the current flow meeting or exceeding a threshold value (Snyder, Paras. [0014] – [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Morimoto is silent as to what information the controller uses to make the logic decisions of switching between sources, Morimoto would inherently incorporate some type of conventional parameter monitoring commonly understood in the art. The parameter monitoring taught by Snyder, for determining system parameters such as current, voltage, temperature, etc., teaches one of the many conventional parameter monitoring circuits utilized in the art for monitoring and controlling the charging of a power source of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Snyder, to monitor and control the power generating controller of Morimoto.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, The teaching of the Morimoto reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 2/1 and 12/11 respectively. Furthermore, Morimoto teaches the first switching condition (Morimoto, Paras. [0052] – [0054], “the capacitor supplies electric power”), and Snyder suggests a current spike meeting or exceeding a threshold value (Snyder, Para. [0266]. Where a current spike is considered a current level exceeding a threshold value.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Morimoto is silent as to what information the controller uses to make the logic decisions of switching between sources, Morimoto would inherently incorporate some type of conventional parameter monitoring commonly understood in the art. The parameter monitoring taught by Snyder, for determining system parameters such as current, voltage, temperature, etc., teaches one of the many conventional parameter monitoring circuits utilized in the art for monitoring and controlling the charging of a power source of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Snyder, to monitor and control the power generating controller of Morimoto.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. U.S. PGPub 2002/0109407 A1 (hereinafter Morimoto) and Snyder et al. U.S. PGPub 2009/0212626 A1 (hereinafter Snyder) as applied to claims 2/1 and 12/11 above respectively, and further in view of Couture et al. U.S. PGPub 2021/0319152 A1 (hereinafter Couture).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, The teaching of the Morimoto reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 2/1 and 12/11 respectively, but does not explicitly teach a database to store real-time measurements of the current flow.
Couture, however, teaches further comprising a database to store real-time measurements of the current flow from the at least one current tester (Couture; Fig. 15; Para. [0130]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Morimoto as modified by Snyder is silent as to collecting and analyzing the current measurements obtained by the sensors and used in the operation of the power generating controller, Morimoto would inherently incorporate some type of conventional data manipulations commonly understood in the art according to the desire of the end product. The data manipulations taught by Couture, for collecting, storing and introducing data into desired algorithms, teaches one of the many conventional data manipulation systems utilized in the art for monitoring and controlling the charging of power source(s) of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Couture, to analyze, manipulate and predict future operation based on historical collected date to improve the power generating controller of Morimoto.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, The teaching of the Morimoto reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 5/2/1 and 15/12/11 respectively, but does not explicitly teach the controller calculates a current use pattern for one or both of the at least one electrochemical battery or the at least one supercapacitor top-off battery.
Couture, however, teaches wherein the controller calculates a current use pattern for one or both of the at least one electrochemical battery or the at least one supercapacitor top-off battery based on the real-time measurements of the current flow (Couture; Figs. 2-3; Paras. [0047] – [0053], “Smart Control Algorithm for Dual-energy Applications”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Morimoto as modified by Snyder is silent as to collecting and analyzing the current measurements obtained by the sensors and used in the operation of the power generating controller, Morimoto would inherently incorporate some type of conventional data manipulations commonly understood in the art according to the desire of the end product. The data manipulations taught by Couture, for collecting, storing and introducing data into desired algorithms, teaches one of the many conventional data manipulation systems utilized in the art for monitoring and controlling the charging of power source(s) of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Couture, to analyze, manipulate and predict future operation based on historical collected date to improve the power generating controller of Morimoto.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, The teaching of the Morimoto reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 6/5/2/1 and 16/15/12/11 respectively, but does not explicitly teach the first switching condition comprises a future load prediction based on the current use pattern exceeding an amount of charge remaining.
Couture, however, teaches wherein the first switching condition comprises a future load prediction based on the current use pattern exceeding an amount of charge remaining in one or both of the at least one electrochemical battery or the at least one supercapacitor top-off battery (Couture; Fig. 1B; Para. [0039], “multiple energy storage system” and Para. [0041], “dual-energy design”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Morimoto as modified by Snyder is silent as to collecting and analyzing the current measurements obtained by the sensors and used in the operation of the power generating controller, Morimoto would inherently incorporate some type of conventional data manipulations commonly understood in the art according to the desire of the end product. The data manipulations taught by Couture, for collecting, storing and introducing data into desired algorithms, teaches one of the many conventional data manipulation systems utilized in the art for monitoring and controlling the charging of power source(s) of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Couture, to analyze, manipulate and predict future operation based on historical collected date to improve the power generating controller of Morimoto.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, The teaching of the Morimoto reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 6/5/2/1 and 16/15/12/11 respectively, but does not explicitly teach the future load prediction is obtained from machine learning according to historical current use patterns.
Couture, however, teaches wherein the future load prediction is obtained from machine learning according to historical current use patterns (Couture; Fig. 14; Para. [0157] – [0159]. Where historical data is used in simulations to optimize power cycles.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Morimoto as modified by Snyder is silent as to collecting and analyzing the current measurements obtained by the sensors and used in the operation of the power generating controller, Morimoto would inherently incorporate some type of conventional data manipulations commonly understood in the art according to the desire of the end product. The data manipulations taught by Couture, for collecting, storing and introducing data into desired algorithms, teaches one of the many conventional data manipulation systems utilized in the art for monitoring and controlling the charging of power source(s) of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Couture, to analyze, manipulate and predict future operation based on historical collected date to improve the power generating controller of Morimoto.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. U.S. PGPub 2002/0109407 A1 (hereinafter Morimoto) in view of Snyder et al. U.S. PGPub 2009/0212626 A1 (hereinafter Snyder) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above respectively, and further in view of Thacher et al. U.S. PGPub 2006/0046895 A1 (hereinafter Thacher).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, The teaching of the Morimoto reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 and 11 respectively. Furthermore, Morimoto teaches the first switching condition of the electric vehicle (Morimoto, Paras. [0052] – [0054], “the capacitor supplies electric power”), but does not explicitly teach a temperature dropping below a low temperature threshold.
Thacher, however, teaches wherein the first switching condition comprises a temperature dropping below a low temperature threshold (Thacher, Para. [0043]).
Absent of showing criticality of switching based on temperature dropping below a low temperature threshold, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a temperature monitoring and control to protect the battery from low temperatures, since applicant has not disclosed that this configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with many methods well understood in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bundschuh et al. U.S. Patent 9,796,258 teaches a power converter with battery and supercapacitors as energy sources.
Suzuki et al. U.S. Patent 5,552,681 teaches an apparatus with battery and supercapacitors as energy sources storing energy during breaking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
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.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859