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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi (USPGPN 2013/0124029), in view of Li et al. (USPGPN 2015/0329003) and Fujita et al. (USPGPN 2018/0261893).
Regarding Claim 1, Izumi (Figs. 1, 4A, & 4B) teaches a battery control apparatus for an electric vehicle, the battery control apparatus comprising
a processor (100) configured to
control a charging and discharging device (200) of the electric vehicle (5; ¶0029: block diagram of a vehicle 5), the electric vehicle comprising a battery (10) configured to store electric power for traveling (¶0031: battery outputs high voltage for driving motor generators 41 and 42), a power transmitter (210) configured to perform electric power transmission (¶0038: connector 210 connects to an external power supply for charging the battery) between the power transmitter and charging equipment (400) provided outside the electric vehicle, and the charging and discharging device (200) configured to charge the battery via the power transmitter (¶0038: charger 200 converts power received from external power source 400 for charging the battery), and
cause the battery to discharge (S12) until a voltage of the battery reaches a discharge end voltage (S13: SOCs, calculated from closed circuit voltage; ¶0077) corresponding to a state of charge of 0% (¶0056: SOCs falls within a range lower than control lower limit α), and thereafter cause the battery to be charged (S16) until the voltage of the battery reaches a charge end voltage (S18: SOCe, calculated from CCV; ¶0080) corresponding to the state of charge of 100% (¶0056: SOCe falls within a range higher than control upper limit β).
Izumi fails to explicitly teach the charge and discharge controller configured to discharge the battery via the power transmitter, and the processor configured to
cause the battery to discharge to the charging equipment via the power transmitter;
record, during charging of the battery following discharge of the battery, open circuit voltages of the battery and corresponding amounts of charge of the battery in correlation with each other;
convert the corresponding amounts of charge of the battery into corresponding states of charge of the battery; and
create, from the open circuit voltages of the battery and the corresponding states of charge of the battery, a characteristic map representing a relation between the state of charge of the battery and the voltage of the battery.
However, Li teaches a vehicle charging system which discharges a vehicle battery (Fig.1, 114) to charging equipment (Fig.1, 126; ¶0043: 126 such as an electric utility grid) via a power transmitter (Fig.1, 124) (¶0051: processor can discharge the battery to an electrical grid to reduce a current SOC to a target SOC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Izumi with Li to include causing the battery to discharge to the charging equipment via the power transmitter. Doing so allows for a conservation of energy by supplying discharged energy to the power grid, while also attempting to extend the battery life, as evidenced by Li (¶0003: reduce the effect of the parameters on battery life).
Moreover, Fujita (Fig.5) teaches a system which records (S411), during charging of a battery (S409) following discharge of a battery (S404), open circuit voltages (S411: open circuit voltage) of the battery and corresponding amounts of charge (S411: charge amount) of the battery in correlation with each other;
converts the corresponding amounts of charge of the battery into corresponding states of charge of the battery (¶0083: change amount converted into an SOC); and
creates, from the open circuit voltages of the battery and the corresponding states of charge of the battery, a characteristic map representing a relation between the state of charge of the battery and the voltage of the battery (S411 & Fig.7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Izumi with Fujita to include recording open circuit voltages and corresponding amounts of charge during charging of a battery, converting the amount of charge to state of charge, and creating a characteristic map from the open circuit voltages and the corresponding states of charge of the battery. Doing so allows the conditions of use of the battery to be updated in response to the change of inner state parameters to suppress deterioration, as evidenced by Fujita (¶0025/0026).
Izumi, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the discharge end voltage corresponds to a SOC range of 0% to α and the charge end voltage corresponds to a SOC range of β to 100%, instead of 0% and 100%, respectively. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select a discharge end voltage corresponding to a 0% SOC and a charge end voltage corresponding to a 100% SOC, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Doing so would allow for a refreshing of the battery to eliminate a degradation due to sulfation, and a determination of a full charge capacity utilizing the entire SOC range of the battery.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Li and Fujita, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (USPGPN 2013/0009764).
Regarding Claim 2, Izumi, as modified, further teaches wherein a practical state of charge (Fig.3, Control Range) and an actual state of charge (Fig.3, ΔSOC2) are each defined as the state of charge of the battery, the actual state of charge being configured to be used to measure a characteristic of the battery (¶0069: ΔSOC2 is used to determine the full charge capacity of the battery),
the processor is further configured to convert the corresponding amounts of charge of the battery into corresponding actual state of charge as the battery to be used to create the characteristic map (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, OCV characteristic map would be created using the total state of charge range ΔSOC2, 0%-100%), and
a voltage of the battery at the actual state of charge of 100% is greater than a voltage of the battery at the practical state of charge of 100% (Fig.3, 100% SOC is greater than β).
Izumi, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the practical state of charge being configured to be displayed to an occupant of the electric vehicle.
However, Yamamoto teaches a display for a vehicle which displays a practical state of charge (Fig.6, 210: SOC display is limited to the range LL-FULL, instead of displaying 0%-100%) to an occupant (¶0008: notifying a user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Izumi, in view of Li and Fujita, with Yamamoto to include displaying the practical state of charge to an occupant of the electric vehicle. Doing so allows a user to see the state of charge of the battery to determine a performance of the electric vehicle, as evidenced by Yamamoto (¶0006).
Regarding Claim 3, Izumi, as modified, further teaches wherein a voltage of the battery at the actual state of charge of 0% is less than a voltage of the battery at the practical state of charge of 0% (ΔSOC2 lower limit is 0% SOC while Control Range minimum is α).
Regarding Claims 4 & 5, Izumi, as modified, further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause the battery to be charged until the voltage of the battery reaches the voltage of the battery at the actual state of charge of 100% (Fig.4B, S16 -> S18: battery is charged until SOC reaches the upper limit of the ΔSOC2 range), and thereafter cause the battery to discharge to the charging equipment until the voltage of the battery reaches the voltage of the battery at the practical state of charge of 100% (Fig.4B, S22 & S23: battery is discharged to Control Range upper limit β).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Li, Fujita, and Yamamoto, as applied to claims 2-5 above, and further in view of Shekher (US Patent 9,387,771 – Published 2016).
Regarding Claims 6-9, Izumi, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to prevent the power transmitter from decoupling from the charging equipment in a case where the voltage of the battery is greater than the voltage of the battery at the practical state of charge of 100% or in a case where the voltage of the battery is less than a voltage of the battery at the practical state of charge of 0%.
However, Shekher teaches a system for preventing a power transmitter from decoupling from charging equipment in a case where the voltage of the battery is less than a threshold value (Fig.2, 240 & 250: electrical socket remains locked until the battery charge level satisfies a threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Izumi, in view of Li, Fujita, and Yamamoto, with Shekher to include a condition for preventing a power transmitter from decoupling from the charging equipment in a case where the voltage of the battery is less than a voltage of battery at the practical state of charge of 0%. Doing so allows for a prevention of non-authorized unplugging of a charging cord, as evidenced by Shekher (Col.1, Lines 39-42).
Claim(s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Li and Fujita, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (USPGPN 2016/0272080).
Regarding Claim 10, Izumi, as modified, further teaches the processor is further configured to repeat one-step charging of the battery, and measurement of the open circuit voltages of the battery in respective multiple steps during charging of the battery (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, Fujita-Fig.5, S409-S412 is repeated), and
create the characteristic map based on multiple plots respectively corresponding to the open circuit voltages of the battery and the corresponding amounts of charge of the battery in the multiple steps (Fujita-Fig.5, S411 is repeated until the upper limit voltage is reached).
Izumi, as modified, fails to explicitly teach suspension of charging and discharging of the battery.
However, Chang teaches a battery charging method in which open circuit voltages are measured during periods in which charging and discharging is suspended (¶0039: terminal voltage is measured after a predetermined settling time after a charge or discharge pulse, the measured voltage is equivalent to an open0circuit voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Izumi, in view of Li and Fujita, with Chang to include suspending charging and discharging prior to taking open circuit voltage measurements. Doing so allows for more frequent measurements and more accurate state of charge estimation, as evidenced by Chang (¶0009).
Regarding Claim 11, Izumi, as modified, further teaches the processor is further configured to acquire the multiple plots over multiple charging processes by shifting timings of the multiple steps from timings of steps in a previous charging process (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, the method of Fujita is used to change the conditions of use in accordance with the state of the battery, indicating the process is repeated during the lifetime of the battery to adjust the conditions over time; Fujita-Fig.5, S402 calculates the open circuit voltage based on a parameter set which is updated, Fig.4:S306, after charging of the battery is completed, ¶0065. Therefore the OCV calculated can be a different OCV than a prior iteration of the method shown in Fig.5, and therefore the recorded OCVs and SOCs would be shifted since Δqn is predetermined, ¶0073).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Li, Fujita, and Chang, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US Patent 11,063,458 B1 – published 2021).
Regarding Claim 12, Izumi, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the processor is further configured to execute charging of the battery at a first step interval in a first voltage range and at a second step interval different from the first step interval in a second voltage range different from the first voltage range.
However, Hwang teaches a battery charging controller which executes charging of the battery at a first step interval in a first voltage range and at a second step interval different from the first step interval in a second voltage range different from the first voltage range (Col.6, lines 37-57: pulse duration may be 1 min long with rest periods of 10 seconds when battery voltage is 50% of a threshold and 30 second pulses with 30 second rests are used when the voltage reaches 95% of a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Izumi, in view of Li, Fujita, and Chang, with Hwang to have the processor further configured to execute charging of the battery at a first step interval in a first voltage range and at a second step interval different from the first step interval in a second voltage range different from the first voltage range. Doing so helps avoid an overcharging of the battery and provides efficient charging, as evidenced by Hwang (Col.1, lines 18-20).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Li, Fujita, Yamamoto, and Shekher, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim (USPGPN 2017/0217403).
Regarding Claim 14, Izumi, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the processor is configured to output a warning display or sound to a user to prevent the user from decoupling the power transmitter from the charging equipment.
However, Kim (Fig.2) teaches a control unit (200) configured to output a warning display to a user to prevent decoupling the power transmitter from charging equipment (¶0079: output unit 205 includes a buzzer or warning light when attempting to separate the connector while the unlock conditions are not satisfied).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Izumi, in view of Li, Fujita, Yamamoto, and Shekher, with Kim to include the processor outputting a warning display or sound to a user to prevent the user from decoupling the power transmitter from the charging equipment. Doing so helps prevent an unauthenticated person from stealing or separating the charging connector, as evidenced by Kim (¶0065).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Li, Fujita, and Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 15, Izumi (Figs. 1, 4A, & 4B) teaches a battery control apparatus for an electric vehicle, the battery control apparatus comprising
a processor (100) configured to
control a charging and discharging device (200) of the electric vehicle (5; ¶0029: block diagram of a vehicle 5), the electric vehicle comprising a battery (10) configured to store electric power for traveling (¶0031: battery outputs high voltage for driving motor generators 41 and 42), a power transmitter (210) configured to perform electric power transmission (¶0038: connector 210 connects to an external power supply for charging the battery) between the power transmitter and charging equipment (400) provided outside the electric vehicle, and the charging and discharging device (200) configured to charge the battery via the power transmitter (¶0038: charger 200 converts power received from external power source 400 for charging the battery),
wherein a practical state of charge (Fig.3, Control Range) and an actual state of charge (Fig.3, ΔSOC2) are each defined as the state of charge of the battery, the actual state of charge being configured to be used to measure a characteristic of the battery (¶0069: ΔSOC2 is used to determine the full charge capacity of the battery),
cause the battery to discharge (S12) until a voltage of the battery reaches a discharge end voltage (S13: SOCs, calculated from closed circuit voltage; ¶0077) corresponding to a state of charge of 0% (¶0056: SOCs falls within a range lower than control lower limit α), and thereafter cause the battery to be charged (S16) until the voltage of the battery reaches a charge end voltage (S18: SOCe, calculated from CCV; ¶0080) corresponding to the state of charge of 100% (¶0056: SOCe falls within a range higher than control upper limit β),
wherein a voltage of the battery at the actual state of charge of 100% is greater than a voltage of the battery at the practical state of charge of 100% (Fig.3, 100% SOC is greater than β),
wherein a voltage of the battery at the actual state of charge of 0% is less than a voltage of the battery at the practical state of charge of 0% (ΔSOC2 lower limit is 0% SOC while Control Range minimum is α), and
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the battery to be charged until the voltage of the battery reaches the voltage of the battery at the actual state of charge of 100% (Fig.4B, S16 -> S18: battery is charged until SOC reaches the upper limit of the ΔSOC2 range), and thereafter cause the battery to discharge to the charging equipment until the voltage of the battery reaches the voltage of the battery at the practical state of charge of 100% (Fig.4B, S22 & S23: battery is discharged to Control Range upper limit β).
Izumi fails to explicitly teach the charge and discharge controller configured to discharge the battery via the power transmitter, and the processor configured to
cause the battery to discharge to the charging equipment via the power transmitter;
wherein the practical state of charge is configured to be displayed to an occupant of the electric vehicle,
discharge to the charging equipment via the power transmitter until a voltage of the battery reaches a voltage of the battery at the practical state of charge of 0%, and thereafter cause the battery to be charged until the voltage of the battery reaches a voltage of the battery at the practical state of charge of 100%,
record, during charging of the battery following discharge of the battery, open circuit voltages of the battery and corresponding amounts of charge of the battery in correlation with each other;
convert the corresponding amounts of charge of the battery into corresponding states of charge of the battery;
create, from the open circuit voltages of the battery and the corresponding states of charge of the battery, a characteristic map representing a relation between the state of charge of the battery and the voltage of the battery, and
charging the battery to an actual state of charge of 100% and discharging to a practical state of charge of 100%, after creating the characteristic map.
However, Li teaches a vehicle charging system which discharges a vehicle battery (Fig.1, 114) to charging equipment (Fig.1, 126; ¶0043: 126 such as an electric utility grid) via a power transmitter (Fig.1, 124) (¶0051: processor can discharge the battery to an electrical grid to reduce a current SOC to a target SOC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Izumi with Li to include causing the battery to discharge to the charging equipment via the power transmitter. Doing so allows for a conservation of energy by supplying discharged energy to the power grid, while also attempting to extend the battery life, as evidenced by Li (¶0003: reduce the effect of the parameters on battery life).
Moreover, Fujita (Fig.5) teaches a system which causes the battery to discharge until the voltage of the battery reaches a voltage at a practical state of charge of 0% and charges the battery until the voltage of the battery reaches a voltage at a practical state of charge of 100% (¶0076: the upper and lower limits to which the battery is discharged to and charged to are determined in terms of the lifetime of the battery, which the examiner equates to the α & β values of Izumi used to prevent degradation),
which records (S411), during charging of a battery (S409) following discharge of a battery (S404), open circuit voltages (S411: open circuit voltage) of the battery and corresponding amounts of charge (S411: charge amount) of the battery in correlation with each other;
converts the corresponding amounts of charge of the battery into corresponding states of charge of the battery (¶0083: change amount converted into an SOC); and
creates, from the open circuit voltages of the battery and the corresponding states of charge of the battery, a characteristic map representing a relation between the state of charge of the battery and the voltage of the battery (S411 & Fig.7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Izumi with Fujita to instead cause the battery to discharge until the voltage of the battery reaches a voltage at a practical state of charge of 0% and charging the battery until the voltage of the battery reaches a voltage at a practical state of charge of 100%, and include recording open circuit voltages and corresponding amounts of charge during charging of a battery, converting the amount of charge to state of charge, and creating a characteristic map from the open circuit voltages and the corresponding states of charge of the battery prior to a charging to an actual state of charge of 100% and subsequent discharge to a practical state of charge of 100%. Doing so allows the conditions of use of the battery to be updated in response to the change of inner state parameters to suppress deterioration, as evidenced by Fujita (¶0025/0026).
Lastly, Yamamoto teaches a display for a vehicle which displays a practical state of charge (Fig.6, 210: SOC display is limited to the range LL-FULL, instead of displaying 0%-100%) to an occupant (¶0008: notifying a user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Izumi, in view of Li and Ichikawa, with Yamamoto to include displaying the practical state of charge to an occupant of the electric vehicle. Doing so allows a user to see the state of charge of the battery to determine a performance of the electric vehicle, as evidenced by Yamamoto (¶0006).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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:
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the processor is further configured to: search the multiple plots for a region having an inflection point or a region having a curve with a curvature greater than a curvature of another region; and set a first step interval for the region and a second step interval for the other region, the first step interval being different from the second step interval.” The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or suggest this limitation in combination with all other limitations recited in the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights