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 because:
- Figure 3, step S2 states “suspend charing”.
- The unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in Figures 1 & 17 should be provided with descriptive text labels.
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 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.
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 Ichilkawa (USPGPN 2010/0131217).
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, and
create 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, Ichikawa teaches a vehicle system which creates a characteristic map representing a relation between the state of charge of the battery and the voltage of the battery (Fig.19, S68).
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 Li with Ichikawa to include the process of creating a characteristic map representing a relation between the state of charge of the battery and the voltage of the battery. Doing so allows for more accurate SOC estimation by renewing the OCV map according to present characteristics of the battery, as evidenced by Ichikawa (¶0146).
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 Ichilkawa, 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 employ the actual state of charge as the state of charge 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 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 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).
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 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 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, Ichilkawa, 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, Ichikawa, 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).
Conclusion
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