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 . The rejections from the Office Action of 1/15/2026 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonetani (US 20150256003 A1), Shinzaki et al. (US 20150137752 A1)[hereinafter “Shinzaki”], and Yokoyama et al. (US 20200384887 A1)[hereinafter “Yokoyama”].
Regarding Claims 1, 15, and 16, Yonetani discloses a control device comprising at least one processor (and corresponding method implemented through use of a computer program stored on a computer-readable medium [See Paragraphs [0032]-[0033]])[Abstract – “A power exchange controller adjusts a power exchange rate between a plurality of batteries and an upper authority to modify a state-of-health of each of the plurality of batteries over time.”Paragraph [0013] – “FIG. 6 is a flow diagram of a method of battery deterioration control as disclosed herein.”Paragraph [0026] – “A method for controlling battery deterioration is shown in FIG. 6. In step S10, when one or more EVs connect to one or more charging stations 130, the power exchange controller 120 determines a total power demand of the system from the power demand of the upper authority 111 and from each of the connected batteries' state-of-charge.”], wherein:
the at least one processor acquires a deterioration state of a battery at a present time point; the battery is provided for a moving object [Paragraph [0027] – “In step S12, the battery state-of-health of each of the connected EV batteries is detected. The battery state-of-health can be detected, for example, by the power exchange controller 120 from an on-board vehicle computer.”];
the at least one processor stores, in at least one memory, an assured power amount that is predetermined and can be output from the battery from a start of using the moving object, at which the moving object is used for the first time with the battery, until an end of a predetermined period [Paragraph [0019] – “As a non-limiting example of power coordination, the controller 120 may demand power from an EV to decrease a peak energy consumption of an upper authority 111 such as a building if the EV battery has sufficient capacity at a peak consumption time.”Paragraph [0026] – “A method for controlling battery deterioration is shown in FIG. 6. In step S10, when one or more EVs connect to one or more charging stations 130, the power exchange controller 120 determines a total power demand of the system from the power demand of the upper authority 111 and from each of the connected batteries' state-of-charge. The total power demand can also be based on user inputs that might alter an individual battery's demand. For example, if a user requires a full charge at a specific time, the power exchange controller 120 must adjust the power demand for that battery, and in turn, the total power demand, to provide that battery with the requisite power at the requisite time.”See Figs. 3B and 4, the control of battery output power for the batteries relative to an upper limit value (PB and PC) or less (PA) based on battery SOH (Fig. 4) in order to achieve a SOH corresponding to a deterioration amount relative to a linear decay from a 95% SOH moving forward over time for all the batteries (Fig. 4). This process is performed “from a start of using the moving object, at which the moving object is used for the first time with the battery, until an end of a predetermined period.” See Paragraph [0022] – “The battery deterioration control system and methods herein control battery deterioration by controlling changes in a battery's state-of-health during power exchanges over the lifetime of the battery to balance the deterioration of all batteries. The systems and methods herein adjust the power exchanged with the battery as the battery's state-of-health changes.”].
Yonetani fails to disclose that the at least one processor calculates a remaining usable power amount, which indicates a power amount that can be output from the battery to an outside of the moving object from the present time point until the end of the predetermined period, based on a value obtained by subtracting a discharged power amount, which has been output from the battery from the start of using the moving object to the present time point, from the assured power amount.
However, Shinzaki discloses calculating a remaining usable power amount, which indicates a power amount that can be output from the battery to an outside of the moving object from the present time point [Fig. 2, SOC distance to threshold 202] until the end of the predetermined period [Fig. 2, V2G time period], based on a value corresponding to a subtracted discharged power amount, which has been output from the battery from the start of using the moving object to the present time point, from the assured power amount [Fig. 2, SOC distance to threshold 202 from 95% SOC can be seen to amount to 95% SOC minus the amount discharged during V2G minus the 60% SOC threshold 202.]. It would have been obvious to perform the recited subtraction because doing so would have allowed for readily determining the amount of power remaining that can be used for V2G.
Shinzaki does not disclose that the discharged power amount is determined through integration. However, Yokoyama discloses determining battery power amounts in such a manner [Paragraph [0054] – “The vehicle control unit 330 calculates a state of charge (SOC) of the on-vehicle battery 310, for example, for each predetermined time according to, for example, a current integration method”]. It would have been obvious to use such a technique to track changes in battery SOC over time due to charging/discharging because doing so would have been an effective manner of tracking the power state of the battery.
Yonetani, as modified, would further disclose that the at least one processor corrects the remaining usable power amount in accordance with the deterioration state at the present time point acquired by the at least one processor; the at least one processor determines, based on the corrected remaining usable power amount, an upper limit value of a power amount discharged from the battery to the outside of the moving object from the present time point until the end of the predetermined period [Paragraph [0019] – “FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing an example of the battery deterioration control system. The power exchange controller 120 is used to coordinate exchange of power between an upper authority 111 and EV batteries connected to the upper authority 111 through the charging stations 130. The upper authority 111 can include, but is not limited to, the power grid 110 or a building or facility which is provided power via the EV batteries without first being routed to the grid 110. As a non-limiting example of power coordination, the controller 120 may demand power from an EV to decrease a peak energy consumption of an upper authority 111 such as a building if the EV battery has sufficient capacity at a peak consumption time. As another example of coordination, the controller 120 may request power to be exchanged with a connected EV battery to assist with frequency regulation of the power grid 110.”Paragraph [0027] – “In step S14, a target state-of-health is determined for the plurality of batteries connected to the charging stations. The target state-of-health is based on each state-of-health of all batteries connected, the target state-of-health being the same for each of the connected batteries. The target state-of-health can be determined using a preprogrammed equation. As non-limiting examples, the target state-of-health can be determined by averaging the states-of-health for the plurality of batteries connected. The target state-of-health can also be a predetermined value that is programmed into the system. For example, the target state-of-health may be set to a value independent of the actual state-of-health of the batteries that are connected. The target state-of-health can be a predetermined sliding scale depending on the actual states-of-health of the batteries connected.”See Figs. 3B and 4, the control of battery output power for the batteries relative to an upper limit value (PB and PC) or less (PA) based on battery SOH (Fig. 4) in order to achieve a SOH corresponding to a deterioration amount relative to a linear decay from a 95% SOH moving forward over time for all the batteries (Fig. 4).]; and
the at least one processor limits the power amount discharged from the battery to the outside of the moving object from the present time point until the end of the predetermined period, to the upper limit value or lower [Paragraph [0028] – “In step S16, a power exchange for each of the connected EV batteries is determined based on the total power demand and a difference between a battery's respective state-of-health and the target state-of-health. The power exchange P.sub.A, P.sub.B, P.sub.C for each of the connected batteries together will be equal to the total power demand P.sub.T. As illustrated in FIG. 3B, the total power demand P.sub.T to all of the connected EV batteries is maintained by adjusting an amplitude of the power exchange by each of the connected batteries A, B, C.”See Figs. 3B and 4, by limiting battery A to an upper limit discharge level of less than the limits established for batteries B and C the SOH for battery A is improved over time.].
Regarding Claim 2, Yonetani discloses that the at least one processor stores, in the at least one memory, reference deterioration information representing a transition in reference values of the deterioration state of the battery with respect to a use time of the moving object [Fig. 4], and the at least one processor determines the upper limit value based on a comparison between a reference value of the deterioration state decided from the reference deterioration information and the use time of the moving object, and the deterioration state acquired by the at least one processor [See Figs. 3B and 4, the control of battery output power for the batteries relative to an upper limit value (PB and PC) or less (PA) based on battery SOH (Fig. 4) in order to achieve a SOH corresponding to a deterioration amount relative to a linear decay from a 95% SOH moving forward over time for all the batteries (Fig. 4).].
Regarding Claim 3, Yonetani discloses that the at least one processor stores, in the at least one memory, a defined upper limit value [Fig. 3B, the upper limit values PB, PC, PA.], and the at least one processor determines the upper limit value by correcting the defined upper limit value higher if the deterioration state acquired by the at least one processor is higher than the reference value, and correcting the defined upper limit value lower if the deterioration state acquired by the at least one processor is lower than the reference value [See Figs. 3B and 4, by limiting battery A to an upper limit discharge level of less than the limits established for batteries B and C the SOH for battery A is improved over time.This process is dynamic over time until, eventually, the control shown in Fig. 3B would revert to the control shown in Fig. 3A (per equalization of SOH as depicted in Fig. 4), see Paragraph [0030] – “As the system is dynamic, after a first power exchange event, for example, battery A will have a higher state-of-health using the control methods herein than it would have without using the control methods, while batteries B, C will have a lower state-of-health using the control methods herein. At the next power exchange event, the state-of-health of batteries A, B, C will be closer in value than they would have been if the control methods herein were not used. As subsequent power exchange events occur, the control methods herein move the state-of-health values of each of the batteries A, B, C closer together. Over the life time of the batteries, the state-of-health of the batteries equalizes.”].
Regarding Claim 4, Yonetani discloses the at least one processor stores, in the at least one memory, lower limit deterioration information representing a transition in lower limit values of a deterioration state of the battery with respect to a use time of the moving object, the deterioration state shows lowness of deterioration of the battery [Fig. 4, linear decay from a 95% SOH moving forward over time], and
the at least one processor prohibits discharge from the battery to the outside of the moving object if the deterioration state acquired by the at least one processor falls below a lower limit value of the deterioration state decided from the lower limit deterioration information and the use time of the moving object [See Figs. 3B and 4, the control of battery output power for the batteries relative to an upper limit value (PB and PC) or less (PA) based on battery SOH (Fig. 4) in order to achieve a SOH corresponding to a deterioration amount relative to a linear decay from a 95% SOH moving forward over time for all the batteries (Fig. 4).].
Regarding Claim 5, Yonetani discloses that the at least one processor stores, in the at least one memory, reference deterioration information representing a transition in reference values of the deterioration state of the battery with respect to a use time of the moving object [Fig. 4]; and
the at least one processor predicts a deterioration state of the battery at a predetermined point of time in a future [Fig. 4, trend lines], and
the at least one processor determines the upper limit value based on a comparison between the deterioration state predicted by the at least one processor and a reference value of the deterioration state decided from the reference deterioration information and the predetermined point of time [See Figs. 3B and 4, the control of battery output power for the batteries relative to an upper limit value (PB and PC) or less (PA) based on battery SOH (Fig. 4) in order to achieve a SOH corresponding to a deterioration amount relative to a linear decay from a 95% SOH moving forward over time for all the batteries (Fig. 4).].
Regarding Claim 6, Yonetani discloses that the at least one processor stores, in the at least one memory, a defined upper limit value [Fig. 3B, the upper limit values PB, PC, PA.], and
the at least one processor determines the upper limit value by correcting the defined upper limit value higher if the deterioration state acquired by the at least one processor is higher than the reference value, and correcting the defined upper limit value lower if the deterioration state acquired by the at least one processor is lower than the reference value [See Figs. 3B and 4, by limiting battery A to an upper limit discharge level of less than the limits established for batteries B and C the SOH for battery A is improved over time.This process is dynamic over time until, eventually, the control shown in Fig. 3B would revert to the control shown in Fig. 3A (per equalization of SOH as depicted in Fig. 4), see Paragraph [0030] – “As the system is dynamic, after a first power exchange event, for example, battery A will have a higher state-of-health using the control methods herein than it would have without using the control methods, while batteries B, C will have a lower state-of-health using the control methods herein. At the next power exchange event, the state-of-health of batteries A, B, C will be closer in value than they would have been if the control methods herein were not used. As subsequent power exchange events occur, the control methods herein move the state-of-health values of each of the batteries A, B, C closer together. Over the life time of the batteries, the state-of-health of the batteries equalizes.”].
Regarding Claims 7 and 12, Yonetani fails to disclose that the at least one processor stores, in the at least one memory, a predetermined total discharge power amount that is allowed to be discharged from the battery within the predetermined period; and
the at least one processor calculates a total power amount of the battery that is used for a movement of the moving object, and
the at least one processor determines the upper limit value by correcting, based on the deterioration state, a differential value in which a total discharge power amount to the outside and the total power amount calculated by the at least one processor are subtracted from the total discharge power amount.
However, Shinzaki discloses determining a total discharge power amount available for discharging [Fig. 2, starting SOC] that takes the form of a combination of a total discharge power amount to the outside [Fig. 2, SOC distance to threshold 202] and a total power amount of the battery that is used for a movement of the moving object [Fig. 2, SOC distance from threshold 202 to 0% SOC.Paragraph [0033] – “The minimum SOC 202 may be set to an amount required to travel in case of certain conditions, for example, if the user has to drive to a hospital for an emergency or to travel to/from local stores.”]. It would have been obvious to determine the amount of power for V2G/driving in the form of such a range in order to allow for taking advantage of V2G electricity arbitrage while still allowing for enough SOC to be maintained in order to drive the EV. It would have been obvious to control power discharge based on such a range and by considering the amount of battery deterioration present (Yonetani) in order to preserve the health of the battery while doing so.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Yonetani discloses the at least one processor stores, in the at least one memory, lower limit deterioration information representing a transition in lower limit values of the deterioration state of the battery with respect to the use time of the moving object, the deterioration state shows lowness of deterioration of the battery [Fig. 4, linear decay from a 95% SOH moving forward over time], and
the at least one processor prohibits discharge from the battery to the outside of the moving object if the deterioration state acquired by the at least one processor falls below a lower limit value of the deterioration state decided from the lower limit deterioration information and the use time of the moving object [See Figs. 3B and 4, the control of battery output power for the batteries relative to an upper limit value (PB and PC) or less (PA) based on battery SOH (Fig. 4) in order to achieve a SOH corresponding to a deterioration amount relative to a linear decay from a 95% SOH moving forward over time for all the batteries (Fig. 4).].
Regarding Claim 10, Yonetani discloses that the at least one processor stores, in the at least one memory, reference deterioration information representing a transition in reference values of the deterioration state of the battery with respect to a use time of the moving object [Fig. 4]; and
the at least one processor predicts the deterioration state of the battery at a predetermined point of time in a future [Fig. 4, trend lines], and
the at least one processor determines the upper limit value based on a comparison between the deterioration state predicted by the at least one processor and a reference value of the deterioration state decided from the reference deterioration information and the predetermined point of time [See Figs. 3B and 4, the control of battery output power for the batteries relative to an upper limit value (PB and PC) or less (PA) based on battery SOH (Fig. 4) in order to achieve a SOH corresponding to a deterioration amount relative to a linear decay from a 95% SOH moving forward over time for all the batteries (Fig. 4).].
Regarding Claim 11, Yonetani discloses that the at least one processor stores, in the at least one memory, a defined upper limit value [Fig. 3B, the upper limit values PB, PC, PA.], and
the at least one processor determines the upper limit value by correcting the defined upper limit value higher if the deterioration state acquired by the at least one processor is higher than the reference value, and correcting the defined upper limit value lower if the deterioration state acquired by the at least one processor is lower than the reference value [See Figs. 3B and 4, by limiting battery A to an upper limit discharge level of less than the limits established for batteries B and C the SOH for battery A is improved over time.This process is dynamic over time until, eventually, the control shown in Fig. 3B would revert to the control shown in Fig. 3A (per equalization of SOH as depicted in Fig. 4), see Paragraph [0030] – “As the system is dynamic, after a first power exchange event, for example, battery A will have a higher state-of-health using the control methods herein than it would have without using the control methods, while batteries B, C will have a lower state-of-health using the control methods herein. At the next power exchange event, the state-of-health of batteries A, B, C will be closer in value than they would have been if the control methods herein were not used. As subsequent power exchange events occur, the control methods herein move the state-of-health values of each of the batteries A, B, C closer together. Over the life time of the batteries, the state-of-health of the batteries equalizes.”].
Regarding Claim 13, Yonetani discloses that the moving object is a vehicle [Fig. 2 – EVs A, B, and C].
Regarding Claim 14, Yonetani discloses a moving object comprising the control device according to claim 1 [Fig. 2 – EVs A, B, and C].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonetani (US 20150256003 A1), Shinzaki et al. (US 20150137752 A1)[hereinafter “Shinzaki”], Yokoyama et al. (US 20200384887 A1)[hereinafter “Yokoyama”], and Haynes et al. (US 20150008843 A1)[hereinafter “Haynes”].
Regarding Claim 17, Yonetani discloses that the at least one processor calculates a reference value of the deterioration state of the battery at the present time point based on a time [Fig. 4, solid lines], during which the moving object has been used from the start of using the moving object until the present time point [Fig. 4, “Time”], and predetermined reference deterioration information representing a transition in reference values of the deterioration state of the battery with respect to a use time of the moving object [Fig. 4, dashed lines];
the at least one processor calculates a power amount correction value by inputting the reference value and the deterioration state at the present time point into a conversion map for outputting the power amount correction value for the remaining usable power amount [Operation to accomplish the result of Fig. 4 via Fig. 3B. Paragraph [0030] – “As subsequent power exchange events occur, the control methods herein move the state-of-health values of each of the batteries A, B, C closer together. Over the life time of the batteries, the state-of-health of the batteries equalizes.”]; and
the at least one processor calculates the corrected remaining usable power amount by adding the power amount correction value to the remaining usable power amount [Adjustment of power per Fig. 3B]; and
the at least one processor limits, using the at least one processor, a power amount per the unit time output from the battery to the outside of the moving object from the present time point until the end of the predetermined period, to the upper limit power amount or lower [Adjustment of power for P.sub.A downward as seen in Fig. 3B].
Yonetani fails to disclose that the at least one processor calculates an upper limit power amount per unit time that can be output from the battery to the outside of the moving object by dividing the corrected remaining usable power amount by a remaining time from the present time point to the end of the predetermined period.
However, Haynes discloses determining a power amount to be supplied in such a manner [Paragraph [0019] – “Similarly, it may be known that the duration of a mission will be 10 hours, and that the beacon should emit the signaling code for this predetermined amount of time. By dividing the energy rating of the power source by the duration of the mission, the power that can be supplied by the power source can be determined.”]. It would have been obvious to perform V2G discharging in such a manner in order to ensure enough capacity is available for a particular V2G session.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
473
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
335
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
61
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using SOH in determining V2G discharging would have been obvious to preserve the health of the battery. Using SOC in determining V2G discharging would have been obvious to prevent
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
541
727
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 95% SOC represents an “assured” power amount in that 95% would be available for operating the vehicle prior to V2G discharging.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
371
723
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
128
726
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Figs. 3B and 4 of Yonetani, the control of battery output power for the batteries relative to an upper limit value (PB and PC) or less (PA) based on battery SOH (Fig. 4) in order to achieve a SOH corresponding to a deterioration amount relative to a linear decay from a 95% SOH moving forward over time for all the batteries (Fig. 4). This process is performed “from a start of using the moving object, at which the moving object is used for the first time with the battery, until an end of a predetermined period.” See Paragraph [0022] – “The battery deterioration control system and methods herein control battery deterioration by controlling changes in a battery's state-of-health during power exchanges over the lifetime of the battery to balance the deterioration of all batteries. The systems and methods herein adjust the power exchanged with the battery as the battery's state-of-health changes.”
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image7.png
539
728
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees. New grounds for rejection are presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150255984 A1 – VEHICLE-TO-GRID SYSTEM CONTROL BASED ON STATE OF HEALTH
US 20200124681 A1 – METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR MANAGING POWER LIMIT
US 20160221456 A1 – Smart Energy Management To Improve Electrified Vehicle Battery Life
US 20170324256 A1 – CONTROL OF PARALLEL BATTERY UTILIZATION
US 10752128 B1 – Systems And Method For EV Battery Second-life Management
Khasawneh et al., State-of-Health Based Load Sharing Strategy in Vehicle-to-Grid Systems, IEEE, 2014
Landi et al., Battery Management in V2G-based Aggregations, Power Systems Computation Conference, 2014
Landi et al., Measurement Techniques for Online Battery State of Health Estimation in Vehicle-to-Grid Applications, IEEE, 2014
Thingvad et al., Empirical Capacity Measurements of Electric Vehicles Subject to Battery Degradation From V2G Services, IEEE, 2021
Wang et al., State-of-Health Aware Optimal Control of Plug-in Electric Vehicles, IEEE, 2014
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
