DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-09-15, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-12 have been amended; Claims 2 and 13-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-09-15 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Chopra “does not disclose the concept of the first target heating rate” (Remarks at 14). It is unclear how Applicant thinks that Chopra models heating times to a given temperature without a heating rate. It is not possible to predict a heating time without using rates. Applicant argues that Chopra does not disclose “dynamically adjusting the heating power” (Remarks at 15). The Office points out that the claim does not say anything about “dynamically adjusting,” nor does Applicant offer an argument that determining when to start heating based on estimated travel time is not a “dynamic adjustment,” made in real time in response to a decision. Chopra’s disclosure clearly reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “obtaining a target heating power (i.e. to heat or not to heat)” by “adjusting” the heating power in response to estimated time to heat and estimated travel time. The Office points out that Chopra expressly refers to a “closed-loop feedback” system of control (abstract, ¶ 0006, Fig. 6), where the model and heating rate is adjusted continuously in response to sensor data and decisions, such as deciding to travel to a charging station. The assertion that a PHOSITA would understand that the comparison “is performed only once” (Remarks at 16) is moot, because any adjustment in real-time in response to new information meets the claim language.
Nonetheless, Chopra also teaches modulation of the heating in response to travel time and desired temperature (¶ 0012). Chopra identifies travel time, temperature, and heating as problems to be modeled and solved, with only a small number of meaningful control levers, including heating rate and heating time. It expressly considers modulating or amplifying heating rate in response to travel duration, and models the temperature as a function of time, inherently involving rates. Even granting for the sake of argument that Chopra does not explicitly disclose a “dynamic,” closed control loop as described in the as-filed specification, it would still have been obvious to a PHOSITA to adjust the active heating power responsive to the difference between the predicted conditioning time and available travel time, because such adjustment predictably implements Chopra’s expressly stated objective of attaining the target temperature upon arrival.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 requires “determining an average heating rate [over a prior period] […] and determining the average heating rate as the current first target heating rate of the battery.” On its face, this requires determining X to be one thing—an average—and then determining it to be another thing. It is unclear whether the “determining the average heating rate as the current first target heating rate of the battery” is meant to say “determining the current first target heating rate of the battery as the average heating rate.” In other words, it is unclear which variable is fixed and which is determined in that step. Claim 1 requires “determining a current first target heating rate of the battery.” Does claim 7 specify how this determining is done, or does it add a second step of determining, or does it simply slot the determined temperature of claim 1 into the “average heating rate” quantity? The claim has been interpreted to require determining a current heating rate (i.e. an “average” over some small interval, since claim 7 does not define the interval).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 3-5, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or under § 103 as obvious over Chopra (US 2023/0137357 to Chopra et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Chopra teaches:
a vehicle battery preheating method (abstract) comprising determining a target charging pile (¶ 0039)
estimating a state of charge (SOC) at the charging pile and ascertaining the charging power of the target charging pile (¶ 0037 and 0040-0042) so as to determine a target temperature based on estimated SOC at arrival and charging power (¶ 0044)
determining a first target heating rate and duration from a current temperature and the target temperature, and heating the battery according to the current estimated heating duration and a traveling duration (¶ 0045-0048)
obtaining a target heating power of the battery by adjusting heating power of the battery according to the estimated heating duration and the traveling duration and heating the battery (¶ 0045-0048)
Chopra teaches that if the travel time is greater than the predicted heating time, it delays the preconditioning. It models the time it will take to get to a given temperature given the current temperature, which necessarily depends on a rate. It therefore determines the heating rate in response to travel time, the current heating rate, and the desired temperature by setting a target heating rate.
Regarding Claims 3-4, Chopra teaches:
increasing or decreasing the current heating power of the battery to achieve the desired target temperature within the traveling duration; and maintaining a current heating power when it is on target to achieve the desired temperature (¶ 0047-0048)
Regarding Claim 5, Chopra teaches:
iterating on the heating rate so that if the current heating rate is insufficient to reach the target temperature within the estimated duration, a second target heating rate is set according to the remaining duration, the target temperature, and the current temperature (¶ 0045, 0049-0050)
Regarding Claim 8, Chopra teaches:
wherein determining the target temperature involves determining an optimal charging battery temperature in view of the charging power and the remaining SOC according to a preset relationship (¶0040-0042)
Regarding Claim 9, Chopra teaches:
selecting a charging station that is able to be reached by estimating the range of the battery at a given SOC and comparing it to the distance to the charign pile, and setting it as an endpoint for the purposes of the preconditioning (¶ 0028 and 0039)
Regarding Claim 12, Chopra teaches:
terminating the heating when the battery reaches the target temperature (¶ 0045-0050)
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra (US 2023/0137357 to Chopra et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Chopra teaches:
iterating the heating to control the battery temperature (¶ 0046)
While Chopra does not explicitly teach determining a maximum heating power, the corresponding maximum heating rate, and setting the heating rate to that dictated by the maximum heating power, it teaches attempting to reach the optimal charging temperature for a given SOC, and using an appropriate heating power for doing so. It would have been obvious, when the duration was short, and the temperature difference was large, to use the maximum heating power to achieve the highest rate, so as to get closest to reaching the optimal temperature. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 7, Chopra teaches:
methods of determining the necessary heating rate over a given duration, and either teaches or renders obvious determining a mean heating rate over a given duration to reach a given temperature, all else equal (¶ 0043-0050)
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra (US 2023/0137357 to Chopra et al.) in view of Li (US 2013/0345976 to Li et al.).
Regarding Claim 10, Chopra teaches:
selecting an appropriate charging station, that is reachable, determining vehicle range based on a wide variety of factors (¶ 0028)
While it does not explicitly describe a step of determining the vehicle is unable to travel to a selected charging pile position, determining a charging pile that is reachable as an intermediate endpoint position, and estimating the future SOC at the endpoint. Chopra already teaches machine learning and other algorithms for determining vehicle range and estimating SOC both in the present and in the future. Li, meanwhile, from the same field of invention, broadly teaches determining which charging states are within range, and calculating fastest and shortest routes there (abstract, Figs.). It would have been obvious to determine an intermediate position, within range of the vehicle given the present SOC, at which to charge the battery, and to perform the appropriate preheating to optimize the charging, whenever the original destination is determined to be unreachable, so that the vehicle does not run out of charge and get stranded.
Regarding Claim 11, Chopra teaches:
navigation devices, etc.
Displaying destinations on vehicle user interfaces for routing purposes was conventional in the art. It would have been obvious to display the intermediate charging pile and its destination in order to route the driver there.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
