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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “charge test circuit” of claim 13 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 recites “wherein the first portion of the selectable power sources the first interval” which does not make sense. Is it supposed to read like claim 10 which recites “wherein the first portion of the selectable power sources for the first interval”? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 13 recites “a charge test circuit”, but when referencing the specification it is unclear what constitutes the “charge test circuit” as this term is not recited within the specification. Is it the “Charger Tester Hardware (HDWR) 132”, the “Test Module 116”, the “Test Module 106”, or something else? If it is either the “test module 116” or “test module 106”, neither of those components are referenced within the drawings and would need to be added. Claims 14-20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 13, from which they depend.
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 14-20 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. Claims 14-16 and 19-20 each recite “The method of claim 13” and claims 17-18 each recite “The method of claim 16”, but claim 13 recites “A vehicle” which is an apparatus. Because a method cannot depend from an apparatus the claims statutory class is unclear.
For purposes of examination, claims 14-20 will be interpreted as apparatus claims.
In claim 17, the language “determines a fault exists and based on the drive data” is indefinite. It is suggested that “and” be deleted, and the claim will be interpreted as such for purposes of examination.
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 1-3, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarkar et al. US 20180236887.
Sarkar discloses the following with respect to claim:
1. A method for charging a battery system in a vehicle [title “Systems and methods for charging an electric vehicle”], comprising:
detecting a connection of an external charging system [Fig 4 and Abstract “determining that an approaching bus is supposed to be charged at the charging station”] to recharge at least one of a supercapacitor and an electrochemical battery [¶43 “In some alternate embodiments, the vehicle energy storage systems may include a combination of lithium titanate batteries and other types of batteries or ultra capacitors”], wherein the supercapacitor comprises selectable power sources [¶43 where plural ultra capacitors reads on the selectable power sources];
in response to detecting the connection of the external charging system, determining whether a fault exists and is associated with at least one of charging or discharging [¶76 “In some embodiments, before or during charging, a sensor may provide one or more signal to a charging controller. In some instances, the sensor may provide information about one or more error or alert state”]; and
charging the supercapacitor based on whether the fault exists [¶72 “When an error or fault is detected, the charging may be stopped” which discloses that charging is allowed when no fault exists].
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the supercapacitor is not charged when fault information is stored in [¶39 “Any action taken by the controller or within a vehicle charging system may be directed by tangible computer readable media, code, instructions, or logic thereof. These may be stored in a memory” and ¶76 above], and the supercapacitor is charged when the fault information is not stored in the database [¶72 above].
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: measuring power provided by at least one of the supercapacitor and the electrochemical battery during vehicle operation to propel at least one passenger or object [¶75 “In some embodiments, a total required charge (kWh) may be tailored based on historical knowledge of energy consumption of vehicle. Historical usage, predicted future requirements, and knowledge of electrical charges and rate schedules may be considered and used to adjust both charge rate and vehicle charging frequency in order to minimize or reduce electrical demand charges and make the most efficient use of on-board energy storage” which discloses that the power provided during vehicle operation is measured and recorded].
7. The method of claim 1, wherein charging the supercapacitor comprises: measuring a current charging rate of the supercapacitor [¶62 “In some embodiments, one or more charge station control system inputs may be provided. Such inputs may be provided from the vehicle, or from the charging station. Some examples of inputs that may be provided may include, but are not limited to, charge arm up position, charge arm down position, current passing brushes position, neutral brush position, charge head landed on vehicle position, charge head over-temperature, individual (10) brush currents, air supply pressure, RFID Tag ID from RFID reader, ultrasonic linear distance measurement, CAN messages from bus (e.g., bus readiness for charge status, charge arm commands, battery charging requirements), or CAN message from chargers (e.g., charger readiness status, instant charge voltage, current and power, cumulative energy delivered)”];
comparing the current charging rate with previous charging rates of power storage that occurred at different recharging instances [¶128 “Alternatively, the desired state of charge may be any value based on historic/predictive data for the vehicle”]; and
detecting the fault based on a deviation of the current charging rate with the previous charging rates [¶137 “The memory 840 may be similar, if not identical, to working memory 736 and/or 820. In some embodiments, the memory 840 may store instructions used by the BMS master 830 including battery monitor instructions 842, battery balancing instructions 844, battery disconnect instructions 846, and/or other code. The battery monitor instructions 842 allow the BMS master 830 to monitor the status of the drive power source. Monitoring a drive power source may comprise communicating with the BMS slave(s) 810 and/or directly monitoring the BMS sensors 860 to detect power system faults” which reasonably discloses that the system monitors for deviations in charging (past vs current) in order to detect faults].
9. The method of claim 7, wherein a rule-based model identifies the fault based on deviation from at least a threshold associated with power charging [Primary Figs 6c-f disclose a rule based model that identifies faults based on a deviation associated with charging].
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the fault is associated with at least one of charging and discharging [¶71 “Any other fault or error detection may cause the charging to stop”].
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 4, 6, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar et al. US 20180236887 in view of Ing US 20210237578.
With regards to claim 4 Sarkar fails to disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the fault exists comprises: retrieving drive data recorded during vehicle operation, the drive data including measured power provided by at least one of the supercapacitor and the electrochemical battery; determining whether the drive data indicates the fault based on the drive data.
However Ing discloses, the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the fault exists comprises: retrieving drive data recorded during vehicle operation, the drive data including measured power [Fig 11 voltage 1110 and current 1115 sensors] provided by at least one of the supercapacitor and the electrochemical battery [Figs 16 and 17 where the power system is monitored];
determining whether the drive data indicates the fault based on the drive data [Figs 16 and 17 where it is determined if a power system fault exists based on the sensor data].
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 battery systems of Sarkar and Ing to determine faults within the system in order to prevent damage to the system/vehicle and enhance safety for the user.
With regards to claim 6 the combination discloses, the method of claim 4, wherein a rule-based model identifies the fault based on deviation from at least a threshold associated with power discharging [Ing Fig 16 discloses a rule based model which identifies a fault based on a deviation associated with discharging].
With regards to claim 10 the combination discloses, the method of claim 7, wherein the charging the supercapacitor [Ing ¶141 “The drive power sources 915, 925, 935 may also include one or more high-capacity capacitors”] comprises charging a first portion of the selectable power sources for a first interval, and charging a second portion of the selectable power sources for a second interval [Ing ¶153 “The battery balancing system 1050 can balance the cells and/or battery packs by: wasting energy from the most charged cells by connecting them to a load (such as through passive regulators); shuffling energy from the most charged cells to the least charged cells (balancers); reducing the charging current to a sufficiently low level that will not damage fully charged cells, while less charged cells may continue to charge (does not apply to Lithium chemistry cells); and modular charging” and ¶149 “As discussed above, the drive power source may be one or more batteries, capacitors, and/or some other electrical storage system. For clarity purposes, the electrical storage system will be described in terms of batteries”].
With regards to claim 11 the combination discloses, the method of claim 10, wherein the first portion of the selectable power sources the first interval are configured to not receive power for a delay period after the first interval expires or power associated with the first portion of the selectable power sources exceeds a threshold [Sarkar ¶75 “In some embodiments, a total required charge (kWh) may be tailored based on historical knowledge of energy consumption of vehicle. Historical usage, predicted future requirements, and knowledge of electrical charges and rate schedules may be considered and used to adjust both charge rate and vehicle charging frequency in order to minimize or reduce electrical demand charges and make the most efficient use of on-board energy storage” which discloses that the ultra capacitors may not be charged (claimed delay period) based on the both historical usage and predicted consumption].
With regards to claim 13 Sarkar discloses, a vehicle [Fig 2b 100] comprising:
a processor [Fig 2b charge controller 254, Fig 3a sensor processor 340 and vehicle control system 348, fig 8 processors 814 and 834];
an electric drivetrain configured to propel the vehicle [Fig 2b electric motors 242];
a plurality of energy storage units including a supercapacitor and an electrochemical battery, the supercapacitor comprising a plurality of selectable power sources [Fig 2b 238a-c and ¶48 “power source 238A, 238B, 238C (e.g., battery unit, capacitor unit, etc.)”]; and
a charge test circuit configured to measure the charge of the vehicle during discharge and charge [Figs 10-15], wherein the processor is configured to:
detect a connection of an external charging system to recharge at least one of a supercapacitor and the electrochemical battery [Fig 2b plug/receptacle and ¶59 “Electrical energy in the form of charge can be transferred from the external power source to the charge controller 254. As provided above, the charge controller 254 may regulate the addition of charge to at least one power source 238 of the vehicle 100” disclosing the connection is detected thus allowing charging], wherein the supercapacitor comprises selectable power sources;
in response to detecting the connection of the external charging system, determine whether a fault exists and is associated with at least one of charging [¶76 “In some embodiments, before or during charging, a sensor may provide one or more signal to a charging controller. In some instances, the sensor may provide information about one or more error or alert state”]; and
control the charging the supercapacitor based on whether the fault exists [¶76 above].
Sarkar fails to disclose or discharging.
However, Ing discloses or discharging [Figs 16 and 17 where it is determined if a power system fault exists based on the sensor data during system operation/discharging].
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 systems of Sarkar and Ing to determine faults within the system for both charging and discharging functions in order to prevent damage to the system/vehicle and enhance safety for the user.
With regards to claim 14 the combination discloses, the method of claim 13, wherein the supercapacitor is not charged when fault information is stored in a database [Sarkar ¶39 “Any action taken by the controller or within a vehicle charging system may be directed by tangible computer readable media, code, instructions, or logic thereof. These may be stored in a memory” and ¶76 above], and the supercapacitor is charged when the fault information is not stored in the database [Sarkar ¶72 above].
With regards to claim 15 the combination discloses, the method of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to:
measure power provided by at least one of the supercapacitor and the electrochemical battery during vehicle operation to propel at least one passenger or object [Sarkar ¶75 “In some embodiments, a total required charge (kWh) may be tailored based on historical knowledge of energy consumption of vehicle. Historical usage, predicted future requirements, and knowledge of electrical charges and rate schedules may be considered and used to adjust both charge rate and vehicle charging frequency in order to minimize or reduce electrical demand charges and make the most efficient use of on-board energy storage” which discloses that the power provided during vehicle operation is measured and recorded].
With regards to claim 16 the combination discloses, the method of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to:
retrieving drive data recorded during vehicle operation, the drive data including measured power [Ing Fig 11 voltage 1110 and current 1115 sensors] provided by at least one of the supercapacitor and the electrochemical battery [Ing Figs 16 and 17 where the power system is monitored];
determining whether the drive data indicates the fault based on the drive data [Ing Figs 16 and 17 where it is determined if a power system fault exists based on the sensor data].
With regards to claim 18 the combination discloses, the method of claim 16, wherein a rule-based model identifies the fault based on deviation from at least a threshold associated with power discharging [Ing fig 16 discloses a rule based model which identifies a fault based on a deviation associated with discharging].
With regards to claim 19 the combination discloses, the method of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to: measure a current charging rate of the supercapacitor [Sarkar ¶62 “In some embodiments, one or more charge station control system inputs may be provided. Such inputs may be provided from the vehicle, or from the charging station. Some examples of inputs that may be provided may include, but are not limited to, charge arm up position, charge arm down position, current passing brushes position, neutral brush position, charge head landed on vehicle position, charge head over-temperature, individual (10) brush currents, air supply pressure, RFID Tag ID from RFID reader, ultrasonic linear distance measurement, CAN messages from bus (e.g., bus readiness for charge status, charge arm commands, battery charging requirements), or CAN message from chargers (e.g., charger readiness status, instant charge voltage, current and power, cumulative energy delivered)”];
compare the current charging rate with previous charging rates of power storage that occurred at different recharging instances [Sarkar ¶128 “Alternatively, the desired state of charge may be any value based on historic/predictive data for the vehicle”]; and
detect the fault based on a deviation of the current charging rate with the previous charging rates [Sarkar ¶137 “The memory 840 may be similar, if not identical, to working memory 736 and/or 820. In some embodiments, the memory 840 may store instructions used by the BMS master 830 including battery monitor instructions 842, battery balancing instructions 844, battery disconnect instructions 846, and/or other code. The battery monitor instructions 842 allow the BMS master 830 to monitor the status of the drive power source. Monitoring a drive power source may comprise communicating with the BMS slave(s) 810 and/or directly monitoring the BMS sensors 860 to detect power system faults” which reasonably discloses that the system monitors for deviations in charging (past vs current) in order to detect faults].
Claims 5, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar et al. US 20180236887 in view of Ing US 20210237578 further in view of Tomar et al. US 20200280108.
With regards to claim 5 Sarkar in view of Ing fail to disclose, the method of claim 4, wherein a machine learning model determines the fault exists and based on the drive data [Fig 1 Predictive model 116 and Fig 4 406 Train a Neural Network model based on the data to predict failure events].
However, Tomar discloses, the method of claim 4, wherein a machine learning model determines the fault exists and based on the drive data [Fig 1 Predictive model 116 and Fig 4 406 Train a Neural Network model based on the data to predict failure events].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the system of Sarkar and Ing with Tomar to utilize a machine learning model to more accurately determine and predict faults in order to limit damage to the battery system and provide reliable estimation of SOH.
With regards to claim 17 the combination discloses, the method of claim 16, wherein a machine learning model determines the fault exists and based on the drive data [Tomar Fig 1 Predictive model 116 and Fig 4 406 Train a Neural Network model based on the data to predict failure events].
With regards to claim 20 the combination discloses, the method of claim 13, wherein a machine learning model identifies the fault based on the current charging rate and the previous charging rates [Tomar Fig 1 Predictive model 116 and Fig 4 406 Train a Neural Network model based on the data to predict failure events and ¶47 “the predictive model 116 can be referred to as “attack” and “defense” steps, respectively. For the “attack” step, different imposed conditions are considered for a battery subject to thermal runaway, external puncture, etc. Individual cell parameters such as voltage, current, internal impedance, capacitance, temperature and pressure are monitored during the testing of these attack cases. An ML model can then be trained as part of the “defense” portion of the solution, learning the behavior of these parameters when the battery is in distress”].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar et al. US 20180236887 in view of Tomar et al. US 20200280108.
With regards to claim 8 Sarkar fails to disclose, the method of claim 7, wherein a machine learning model identifies the fault based on the current charging rate and the previous charging rates.
However, Tomar discloses, the method of claim 7, wherein a machine learning model identifies the fault based on the current charging rate and the previous charging rates [Fig 1 Predictive model 116 and Fig 4 406 Train a Neural Network model based on the data to predict failure events and ¶47 “the predictive model 116 can be referred to as “attack” and “defense” steps, respectively. For the “attack” step, different imposed conditions are considered for a battery subject to thermal runaway, external puncture, etc. Individual cell parameters such as voltage, current, internal impedance, capacitance, temperature and pressure are monitored during the testing of these attack cases. An ML model can then be trained as part of the “defense” portion of the solution, learning the behavior of these parameters when the battery is in distress”].
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 systems of Sarkar and Tomar to utilize a machine learning model to identify faults in order to predict and potentially prevent failures, improve safety, and better determine a state of health.
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