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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “of the” is repeated in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 recites “determining a charging target
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Couture et al. US 20210319152.
With regards to claim 1 Couture discloses, a method for charging a battery system in a vehicle [Fig 1a electric car 100], comprising:
measuring power [Abstract “sensed electrical power usage information and a power requirement of the load in a current time interval, charging/discharging parameters for each of the first energy storage system and the second energy storage system”] provided by at least one of
a supercapacitor [Fig 1a High Power Unit HPU 108] and
an electrochemical battery [High Energy Unit HEU 106],
wherein the supercapacitor comprises a plurality of selectable power sources [¶35 “In various embodiments, an HEU may be an energy cell, an energy module, an energy pack, etc., and likewise for an HPU”];
receiving regenerated power from a regenerative power generator [Generator 102] of the vehicle [¶52 “During time intervals in which power is recovered from the application (e.g. through regenerative braking for vehicle applications and other energy recovery techniques), the battery management system 310 may be configured to charge one or multiple of the energy storage systems (e.g., one or both of the HEU and HPU); and
providing at least a portion of the regenerated power to at least one of the supercapacitor
and the electrochemical battery for charging [¶52].
With regards to claim 2 Couture discloses, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
while receiving the regenerated power from the regenerative power generator, measuring at least one of a first stored power of the supercapacitor and a second stored power of the electrochemical battery [¶54 “The dual-energy specification may also include the present states of charge of both the HEU and HPU, which may be obtained, for example, using electrical sensors (e.g., sensors to monitor energy system voltage, current, and the like)”; and
determining whether the supercapacitor can receive the portion of the regenerated power based on the measured power [Fig 6b HPU max power is determined and the HPU is charged to the energy limit].
With regards to claim 3 Couture discloses, the method of claim 2, further comprising:
retrieving battery charging information from a database that stores energy management information of the vehicle [Fig 4 historical data],
wherein the battery charging information identifies at least one condition to be satisfied that indicates the supercapacitor can receive the power from the regenerative power generator [Fig 4 current states of charge of storage units and ¶52 above].
With regards to claim 4 Couture discloses, the method of claim 2, further comprising:
measuring a voltage of at least one selectable power source of the supercapacitor [Fig 4 states of charge are determined]; and
determining the first stored power of the supercapacitor based on the voltage [¶45 “The physical model of the HPU 140 may include HPU characteristics including, but not limited to, a rated charge and discharge power, a rated capacity, cost, weight, operating states of charge, operating temperatures, etc”].
With regards to claim 5 Couture discloses, the method of claim 2, further comprising:
retrieving information recorded in a database corresponding to the power provided by the supercapacitor [¶45 above]; and
determining an amount of power stored in the supercapacitor based on information recorded in the database corresponding to the power provided by the supercapacitor [¶54 “Power input—an instantaneous and/or historical load profile (e.g., a time-resolved power received from or consumed by the electrical load) may be retrieved from memory, and/or generated by one or more computer processors according to data stored in memory and other information, such as type of application, time of day, temperature, user profiles, and the like” and “The dual-energy specification may also include the present states of charge of both the HEU and HPU, which may be obtained, for example, using electrical sensors (e.g., sensors to monitor energy system voltage, current, and the like)”].
With regards to claim 6 Couture discloses, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
when providing at least the portion of the power to the supercapacitor for charging, determining that the power stored in the supercapacitor exceeds a storage threshold [Fig 6b and ¶51 “The one or more computer processors may be programmed to continually or periodically evaluate the state of charge of the HEU and/or HPU, and other variables such as trends in system power demand and instantaneous power demand, and dynamically adjust the energy utilization control strategy accordingly”]; and
discontinuing providing the portion of the power to the supercapacitor [Fig 6b where during charging the system prioritizes charging the HPU to its energy limit and then switches to charging the HEU].
With regards to claim 7 Couture discloses, the method of claim 6, wherein the storage threshold is determined by a manufacturer of the supercapacitor [¶45 above].
With regards to claim 8 Couture discloses, the method of claim 6, wherein the storage threshold is determined by a machine learning model [Fig 14a machine learning closed loop “Calculate safe max charge/discharge power for HPU at each time”] of a device configured to interface with the supercapacitor.
With regards to claim 15 Couture discloses, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a charging target of the of the supercapacitor and the electrochemical battery for charging based on an estimated life of the supercapacitor and an estimated life of the electrochemical battery [Fig 14b Control Algorithm for maximizing system lifetime which discloses max powers for both the HEU and HPU].
With regards to claim 16 Couture discloses, the method of claim 1, wherein a data charging information for each of the plurality of selectable power sources is stored for each of the plurality of selectable power sources [¶54 “Power input—an instantaneous and/or historical load profile (e.g., a time-resolved power received from or consumed by the electrical load) may be retrieved from memory, and/or generated by one or more computer processors according to data stored in memory”].
With regards to claim 17 Couture discloses, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a first set of selectable power sources of the plurality of selectable power sources to charge [HPU and HEU],
wherein the first set of selectable power sources receives the portion of the regenerated power for charging, and wherein a second set of selectable power sources do not receive the portion of the regenerated power [Fig 6b “Prioritize charging of HPU” where the HPU is charged to its limit and then the HEU is charged].
With regards to claim 18 Couture discloses, a vehicle [Fig 1a vehicle 100] comprising:
an electric drivetrain configured to propel the vehicle [¶142 “drivetrain”];
a plurality of energy storage units including a supercapacitor [HPU 108] and
an electrochemical battery [HEU 106],
the supercapacitor comprising a plurality of selectable power sources [¶35 “In various embodiments, an HEU may be an energy cell, an energy module, an energy pack, etc., and likewise for an HPU”];
a regenerative power generator configured to generate energy based on motion of the vehicle [generator 102];
an adder module including a processor [computer processor 110] configured to selectively connect the supercapacitor or the electrochemical battery to an electric drivetrain to propel the vehicle, wherein the processor is configured to:
control a sensor to measure power provided by at least one of the supercapacitor and the electrochemical battery [¶40 “Electrical power sensors and switching circuitry may be configured to monitor and control the flow of electrical power to and from any of the HEU 106, HPU 108, and electrical motor/generator 102”];
receive information identifying regenerated power from the regenerative power generator [¶40]; and
control at least one switch to provide at least a portion of the regenerated power to at least one of the supercapacitor and the electrochemical battery for charging [¶40].
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couture et al. US 20210319152 in view of Hsieh et al. US 20200039454.
With regards to claim 9 Couture fails to disclose, the method of claim 1, further comprising: when providing at least the portion of the power to the supercapacitor for charging, determining a duration of charging the supercapacitor exceeds a charging duration; and discontinuing providing the portion of the power to the supercapacitor.
However, Hsieh discloses, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
when providing at least the portion of the power to the supercapacitor for charging, determining a duration of charging the supercapacitor exceeds a charging duration; and
discontinuing providing the portion of the power to the supercapacitor [¶14 “the selectively disconnecting the sensor suite and the supercapacitor from a voltage source of the vehicle comprises determining that the supercapacitor has failed to charge to an upper threshold voltage within a threshold amount of time and disconnecting the sensor suite and the supercapacitor from the voltage source based on the determining that the supercapacitor has failed to charge to the upper threshold voltage within the threshold amount of time”].
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 Couture and Hsieh to determine a charging duration in order to protect the charging system in case of a fault.
With regards to claim 10 the combination discloses, the method of claim 9, wherein the duration of charging the supercapacitor is determined by a manufacturer of the supercapacitor [It is inherent that the structure and material properties of a supercapacitor, which are determined by the manufacturer’s fabrication process, dictate its charging characteristics, to include the charging duration].
Claims 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couture et al. US 20210319152 in view of Wang et al. CN 108608876.
With regards to claim 12 Couture fails to discloses, the method of claim 1, further comprising: after charging the supercapacitor, determining a charging delay period for not receiving power to recharge the supercapacitor.
However, Wang discloses, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
after charging the supercapacitor, determining a charging delay period for not receiving power to recharge the supercapacitor [¶34 “a control strategy for a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) hybrid power management system based on multiple dynamic fuzzy decision trees. It comprises three parts: hybrid power source state of charge (SOC) prediction control, hybrid power source power allocation control, and generator charging scheduling control. The SOC prediction control uses multiple dynamic decision trees to simultaneously predict the SOC of both the battery and the supercapacitor. The power allocation control uses fuzzy decision trees to rationally allocate power between the battery and the supercapacitor. The generator charging scheduling control uses the predicted SOC values of the battery and supercapacitor to timely schedule the generator part of the drive motor to charge the battery or supercapacitor, thereby extending the range of the HEV” where there is a delay in charging the supercapacitor].
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 Couture and Wang to utilize a delay in charging in order to protect and prolong the life of the system.
With regards to claim 13 the combination discloses, the method of claim 12, wherein the charging delay period is determined based on a manufacturer of the supercapacitor or a machine learning model of a device configured to interface with the supercapacitor [Wang ¶34 above].
With regards to claim 14 the combination discloses, the method of claim 12, further comprising:
determining the charging delay period based on charging and discharging cycles of the supercapacitor and charging and discharging cycles of the electrochemical battery [Wang ¶34 above where the schedule involves charging and discharging cycles].
With regards to claim 19 the combination discloses, the vehicle of claim 18, wherein the processor is further configured to: after charging the supercapacitor, determine a charging delay period for not receiving power to charge the supercapacitor [Wang ¶34 above].
With regards to claim 20 the combination discloses, the vehicle of claim 19, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the charging delay period based on charging and discharging cycles of the supercapacitor and charging and discharging cycles of the electrochemical battery [Wang ¶34 above].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the duration of charging the supercapacitor is determined by a machine learning model of a device configured to interface with the supercapacitor”.
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
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859