DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits, in response to the claims received 3/29/2023. Claims 1-7 are pending for prosecution below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)(s) file on have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thiruvengadam et al, (Thiruvengadam), (USPATNO.10,836,371).
As for claim 1, Thiruvengadam discloses and shows in Figs. 3 and 8 a charge control system for a battery mounted on an electric vehicle, the charge control system comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire an intention of a user related to charge; set a range of an upper limit SOC (via Target SOC) based on the intention of the user, the upper limit SOC being a SOC for ending the charge of the battery; acquire power consumption history of the battery; and set the upper limit SOC in the range of the upper limit SOC based on the power consumption history (col.7, line 38- col.8, line 22, col.10, line 1-22)
As for claim 2, Thiruvengadam discloses and shows in Figs. 3 and 8 the processing circuitry is further configured to: set an allowable charge count in a predetermined period (via navigational route) based on the intention of the user or charge behavior history of the user; and calculate a required SOC based on the power consumption history and the allowable charge count, the required SOC being a SOC required for one-time charge, wherein the processing circuitry sets the upper limit SOC in the range of the upper limit SOC based on the required SOC.
As for claim 3, Thiruvengadam discloses and shows in Figs. 3 and 8 the processing circuitry has a plurality of charge modes in each of which the
range of the upper limit SOC and the allowable charge count are set, and
wherein the processing circuitry sets any one of the plurality of charge modes based
on an input from the user (col.7, line 20-37)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are 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:
Claim 4: wherein the plurality of charge modes includes a charge count priority mode and a battery life priority mode, and wherein the allowable charge count in the battery life priority mode is larger than that in the charge count priority mode, and a lower limit value of a setting range of the upper limit SOC in the battery life priority mode is lower than that in the charge count priority mode , in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims
Claim 5: wherein when the processing circuitry cannot set the upper limit SOC in the range of the upper limit SOC based on the required SOC, the processing circuitry requests the user to change the charge mode, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims
Claim 7: based on the power consumption history, the processing circuitry acquires:
the required SOC obtained by multiplying a normal SOC by a required
number of days determined by the allowable charge count, the normal SOC being a SOC normally consumed in one day; a maximum SOC in a past predetermined period obtained from the power consumption history; a first SOC obtained by adding the required SOC to a current SOC; and a second SOC obtained by adding the maximum SOC to a reference SOC, and wherein the processing circuitry sets a larger one of the first SOC and the second SOC as the upper limit SOC, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859