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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 11, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on July 10, 2026. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, 16 and 19-24 were previously pending, of which claims 1 and 11 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, 16 and 19-26 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 9-14, filed July 10, 2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With regard to U.S.C. §103 rejection, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., expected availability information for charging equipment at the target roadside charging station, and past operator behavior relating to the electrified vehicle including (i) past behavior of a current operator of the electrified vehicle and (ii) past behavior of a same or similar type of the electrified vehicle, different than the electrified vehicle, by one or more other operators that are different than the current operator) was not clearly defined in the prior art for the rejection in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, new limitations presented from the amended claims are not persuasive in view of additional prior art. Therefore, the rejection is maintained in the Final Office Action below.
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 1, 11 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., (US20240025301A1), hereinafter “Park” , in view of Sherback et al. (US 20190157882 A1), hereinafter “Sherback”, in further view of Holme et el., (WO 2019017991 A1), hereinafter “Holme”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Park discloses a charging session optimization system for an electrified vehicle, the charging session optimization system comprising: a See [0106], “FIG. 6 is a flowchart showing a method of providing information for determining whether to enter battery pre-conditioning. According to an embodiment of the disclosure, the method of providing information for determining whether to enter the battery pre-conditioning includes: searching for at least one charging station that satisfies a certain condition based on the current location of the vehicle (S620); determining charging condition information about at least one found charging station for each case of performing battery pre-conditioning and not performing battery pre-conditioning (S630); and outputting the determined charging condition information (S640). The information providing method, according to an embodiment of the disclosure, is described below in detail. And [0107], “Referring to FIG. 6, the information providing method, according to an embodiment of the disclosure, may further include a step of checking the current temperature and SOC of the battery in the vehicle (S610). Step S610 may be carried out as the BMS 120 of the electrified vehicle 100 transmits information about the temperature, SOC, and the like, of the battery to the determining unit 220.”
PNG
media_image1.png
495
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a controller configured to: determine a target roadside charging station intended to be used for a future charging session to recharge the high voltage battery system; determine a set of known
information relating to the upcoming charging session, the set of known information
including at least one vehicle performance parameter, expected availability information for charging equipment at the target roadside charging station; based on at least the temperature and the SOC of the high voltage battery system and the set of known information, determine a cost-maximized thermal conditioning strategy, for thermally preconditioning the high voltage battery system during a period up until the future charging session begins by evaluating a cost function that independently weights (i) a preconditioning energy cost of performing thermal preconditioning of the high voltage battery system onboard the electrified vehicle prior to arrival at the target roadside charging station against (ii) an expected charging cost of charging at the target roadside charging station, wherein the cost function further incorporates the expected availability information for the charging equipment the past behaviors to determine a timing and an extent of the thermal preconditioning that minimizes a total cost of the future charging session including both the preconditioning energy cost and the expected charging cost; See [0108], “The searching unit 210 searches for at least one charging station that satisfies a certain condition based on the current location of the vehicle (S620). Determining whether the charging station satisfies the conditions may be based on a distance between the vehicle and the charging station, an expected arrival time, and the like. Further, determining whether the charging station satisfies the conditions may be done in consideration of whether the charger of the corresponding charging station supports fast charging or ultrafast charging.” And [0109], “After the charging station is found, the determining unit 220 determines the charging condition information about at least one found charging station with and without the battery pre-conditioning (S630). The charging condition information includes at least one of the expected charging cost or the expected charging time, and may further include the expected SOC or the expected battery temperature upon the time of arrival at the charging station. In step S630, the determining unit 220 may determine the expected SOC upon the time of arrival at the found charging station based on the checked current SOC of the vehicle, travel energy consumption due to travel to the found charging station, and conditioning energy consumption due to the battery pre-conditioning. The SOC is generally expressed in units of %, and thus the foregoing determination of the expected SOC may mean that the energy consumption (kWh) is first applied to the capacity of the battery and converted into units of % and then subtracted from the current SOC. Alternatively, the current SOC may be converted into units of kWh for the energy, and a value may be obtained by subtracting the energy consumption from the converted energy corresponding to the current SOC and converted again into units of %.”
Park discloses a vehicle charging session optimization system, but does not explicitly disclose the past operator behaviors or expected temperature and SOC at the end of the charging session. However, Sherback teaches a preconditioning system including a set of battery system sensors in [0027] and the following: past operator behavior relating to the electrified vehicle including (i) past behavior of a current operator of the electrified vehicle; See at least Fig.3 and [0024], ” the stored information 336 describes previous user actions that may be used by the controller 112 to predict future user actions … the stored information 336 describes operating characteristics previously experienced by the system 100, such as energy usage rates under specific operating conditions.“
See at least [0026],” the battery management system 332 may precondition the battery pack 106 in advance of charging such as by pre-cooling the battery pack 106 while system 100 is en-route to a charging location.”
controlling the thermal preconditioning of the high voltage battery system is performed such that its future temperature and future SOC at an end of the period when the future charging session begins are each within predetermined ranges associated with an optimal rate of recharging. See at least [0020] for operating temperature range and [0038], "The charge preconditioning setting may be a specific value or a range of values. As an example, the charge preconditioning setting may be between twenty-eight and forty-five degrees Celsius, and the thermal regulation system 108 may be operable to achieve a temperature reduction of this magnitude within fifty minutes during operation of the system 100." Also [0042], "Thus, when the state of charge information 442 indicates that the system 100 will be operable for a time or range that is less than a time or range threshold value, the battery management system 332 may determine that charging is likely and modify the target temperature to cool the battery pack 106 prior to charging, such as by changing the target temperature 450 from the nominal setting to the charge preconditioning setting."
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 Park system to include the past behaviors and future state disclosed in Park, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the user experience of the system by reducing the amount of time spent charging the battery pack in Sherback [0026].
Park and Sherback teach a vehicle charging session optimization system with past behavior of the vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the past behavior of a similar electric vehicle. However, Holme teaches a vehicle battery modeling system including: (ii) past behavior of a same or similar type of the electrified vehicle, different than the electrified vehicle, by one or more other operators that are different than the current operator; In [0012] Holmes teaches inputs include Specific to user (past user behaviors); general to user (demographic info = using other similar users' (other operators) info as part of prediction) / general to vehicle = make/model performs (i.e. the same make/model "past behavior" (how they perform) for that general make/model of vehicle; from applicant's spec "same or similar" vehicles is known to include/be make/model being same/similar); and then [0013]-[0014] teach what the model predicts (future SOC, temperature, voltage, etc of battery); [0014] here discloses that these predictions can be used in making choices about when/where to charge, does the battery need to be preheated, etc.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 Park system to include the predictive battery model disclosed in Holme, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to create a predictive model that is common to different types of vehicle platforms that share some common characteristics with the battery system, see Holme [0018].
Regarding Claims 25 and 26, Park and Sherback teach a charging session optimization system with past behavior of the vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the past behavior of a similar electric vehicle. However, Holme teaches a vehicle battery modeling system including: wherein the same or similar type of the electrified vehicle, different than the electrified vehicle, and the electrified vehicle both correspond to a same model electrified vehicle. In [0012]” According to the various embodiments, the PM may make predictions and/or decisions based on data provided by sensors that measure a physical state of the battery, as well as sensor and controller data that monitors or regulates a load current on the battery. The battery sensor data includes such things as a battery's existing temperature, pressure and voltage. The sensor and controller data relates to a vehicle subsystem that draws or pushes current from/to the battery. Additionally, the prediction module makes use of other data, in addition to a battery's present temperature, terminal voltage, and current. Such other data may be classified as: … General to the vehicle, e.g., car make and model, commercial or private use…” The “general to the vehicle” considerations includes predicting/modeling of the battery performance based on the make and model (i.e. how do car(s) (other vehicles) of that model perform). This is considered to read on the claim limitations in light of applicant’s specification [0017] where historical information of similar/same vehicles is/includes the make/model of the vehicle.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 Park system to include the predictive battery model disclosed in Holme, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to create a predictive model that is common to different types of vehicle platforms that share some common characteristics with the battery system, see Holme [0018].
Claims 2, 3, 6, 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Sherback, further in view of Holme and further in view of Shaotran et al (US 20230001824 A1), hereinafter “Shaotran”.
Regarding Claim 2 and 12, Park discloses a charging session optimization system , but does not explicitly disclose powertrain modification limitations from claim 1 and 11. However, Shaotran teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to perform thermal preconditioning of the high voltage battery system by adjusting operation of an electrified powertrain comprising one or more electric motors powered by the high voltage battery system. See at least [0054], “charging controller for the battery 124 configured to charge the battery (thereby increasing its temperature) using a regenerative braking system of the vehicle 120.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 Park system to include the powertrain limitations disclosed in Shaotran, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to implement the built in functionality of the electric powertrain to assist in preconditioning of the battery pack for optimal charging in Shaotran [0002].
Regarding Claim 3 and 13, Park discloses a charging session optimization system, but does not explicitly disclose the heating and cooling device. However, Sherback teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to perform thermal preconditioning of the high voltage battery system by controlling a thermal management system of the electrified vehicle that is configured to heat/cool the high voltage battery system. See at least [0020], “the thermal regulation system 108 is configured for heat transfer 114 with respect to the battery pack 106 … the thermal regulation system 108 may incorporate electrically operated heating and/or cooling devices.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 Park system to include heating and cooling system disclosed in Sherback, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain the temperature of the battery pack 106 within a range that optimizes performance of the battery pack in Sherback [0020].
Regarding Claim 6 and 16, Park discloses a charging session optimization system, but does not explicitly disclose the known information. However, Shaotran teaches:
wherein the set of known information includes climate conditions, distance, duration, estimated time of arrival, average and instantaneous vehicle speed, traffic information, and road gradient. See at least [0015], “analyzing the route may include analyzing and/or procuring pre-stored information (e.g., topographical maps based on location, roadway layouts, and so on), as well as on-demand (e.g., Internet-available or streamable) information (e.g., real-time weather updates, traffic, and so on).”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 Park device to include the navigation information limitations disclosed in Shaotran, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with the most accurate route planning in order to optimize the battery charging experience in Shaotran [0036].
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Sherback, further in view of Holme and further in view of Kishiyama et al (US 20150137768 A1), hereinafter “Kishiyama”.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Park discloses a preconditioning system, but does not explicitly disclose availability information. However, Sherback teaches the following: wherein the expected availability information for the charging equipment at the target roadside charging station; In [0042], "the determination is made based on the availability of charging locations while en route to the intended destination."
While Sherback discloses availability of a charging station, it does not explicitly disclose
expected availability of a charging system at the target roadside charging station at a time of arrival.
However, Kishiyama teaches in [0023], "Enhanced charging system 100 is more intelligent and uses
available resources more optimally ... user 120 requests (explicitly or implicitly) 80% SOC two hours
from the initiation of charging, station control 125 determines ... charge rate to meet the user primary
need." Note: Expected availability can be determined based on the response from the charging station
to the user request.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 Sherback system to
include the charging availability disclosed in Kishiyama, with reasonable expectation of success. The
motivation for doing so would have been to have an optimized charging profile that meets desired
primary and selected secondary considerations in Kishiyama [0026].
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Sherback, in further view of Holme, and further in view of Perry et al (US 20180281612 A1), hereinafter “Perry”.
Regarding Claim 10 and 20, Park discloses a preconditioning system, but does not explicitly disclose vehicle to everything communication. However, Perry teaches the additional limitations:
wherein the controller determines the expected availability information for the charging equipment at the target roadside charging station from the target roadside charging station via a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication system. See at least [0019], “EV charging infrastructure 104 can be communicatively coupled to the requesting vehicle 102 via a wireless communication network 110, for example, using vehicle-to-infrastructure (“V2I”) and infrastructure-to-vehicle (“I2V”) communication protocols. The V2I and I2V protocols may be used to convey availability status information for each of the charging stations 106 and 108 to the requesting vehicle 102. For example, the requesting vehicle 102 can include a vehicle telematics unit (such as, e.g., telematics control unit (TCU) 408 shown in FIG. 4) that is configured to facilitate communication with other components of the environment 100 via the wireless communication network 110.“
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 Park and Perry to include the “V2” limitations disclosed in Perry, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method of determining availability of a vehicle charging station in a vehicle, see Perry [0006].
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Sherback, in further view of Holme, and further in view of Tuukkanen et al (US 20230382256 A1), hereinafter “Tuukkanen”.
Regarding Claims 22 and 24, Park does not explicitly disclose the charging strategy limitations dependent from claims 1 and 11. However, Tuukkanen teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to minimize a total stoppage time at the target roadside charging station by accounting for: (i) a particular battery thermal management strategy, chosen before arriving at the target roadside charging station; See at least [0070], “charge point module 305 can determine a temperature regulating time period for the battery, the charge point, or a combination thereof before charging based on the battery temperature, the environmental condition at the charge point, or a combination thereof, and the battery, the charge point, or a combination thereof can be cooled down or heated up to a battery temperature charging range (e.g., 15° C. to 35° C. in FIG. 6B while an ideal temperature of 32° C.) during the temperature regulating time period. The charge point module 305 can then select the charge point (e.g., the charge point 103) by using the battery temperature function to predict that the environmental condition (e.g., environmental conditions 105, such as indoor/outdoor, roofed, sun exposure, wind exposure, etc.) of the charge point (e.g., the charge point 103) is expected to result in the battery temperature being in the battery temperature charging range during or after the temperature regulating time period, in the battery temperature being in the battery temperature operating range (e.g., 15° C. to 35° C. in FIG. 6A while an ideal temperature of 25° C.) during, before, or after the charging time window, or a combination thereof. For instance, the charge point module 305 can guide the electric vehicle 101 to a charge point ready to be used, avoiding waiting for cooling down the battery pack (e.g., to avoid a charge point uphill that will heat up the battery pack even more).”
(ii) a final battery temperature at a completion of the future charging session; and (iii) an SOC range of charging during the future charging session and how the battery system will accept charge across the SOC range and at expected temperatures of the battery system. See at least [0068], “FIGS. 7A-7B are temperature versus time diagrams at a given location within a battery pack, according to example embodiment(s). The temperature results from the developed digital model of the battery pack can be compared to the data obtained from the experiments to validate the digital model. For instance, FIG. 7A shows the temperature change of the battery pack initially at 90% State of Charge (SOC) and 25° C. as the battery pack was discharged at a constant c-rate of 1.5 for 1800 seconds. FIG. 7B presents the change in the temperature of a 10% SOC battery pack charging for 3000 seconds. A maximum difference of 0.7° C. was observed between the digital model and the experimental data.” And [0078], “battery temperature module 303 can determine a current battery temperature (e.g., 38 C) of the battery (e.g., the battery pack 113) at the time of the request, and the charging time window, the charge point, or a combination thereof can be determined by the battery temperature module 303 in conjunction with the charging optimization module 307 based on using the battery temperature function to predict when or where the current battery temperature will be in the battery temperature operating range (e.g., 15° C. to 35° C. in FIG. 6A) during, before, or after the charging time window (e.g., 20 minutes during lunch time or night time).”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Park to include the optimized battery temperature strategy disclosed in Tuukkanen, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide means for determining a battery temperature operating range for the battery, see Tuukkanen [0007].
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Sherback, in further view of Holme as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, in further view of Galamb et al., US 2016/0052421 A1 (Hereinafter “Galamb”).
Regarding Claims 21 and 23, Park discloses the following limitation(s) dependent on claims 1 and 11:
the expected availability information for the charging equipment at the target roadside charging station See at least [0108-0109].
Park discloses a charging optimization system, but does not disclose includes an expected availability of an external thermal battery conditioning system that is separate from the electrified vehicle. However, Galamb teaches in [0040], “FIG. 1 illustrates a charging station 2, which … comprises a cooling body 5 recessed into the ground 7 for the temperature control of a traction battery to be charged and arranged in a vehicle during a charging process at the charging station 2.” Note: While expected availability is not discussed in Galamb, it would be inherent that the charging station taught in Park would have the same expected availability as the thermal conditioning system if included with the charging equipment in Galamb.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the offboard conditioning (charging station) of Galamb instead of the onboard conditioning disclosed in Park, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce cost and improve reliability of the vehicle battery in Galamb [0013].
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights