DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: "nether" should be "neither". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later 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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPUB 2017/0151885 in view of Sugiyama US PGPUB 2015/0336468.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Kim discloses an apparatus of controlling discharge of a battery in a vehicle that generates driving power using electric power [abs.; fig. 2; a vehicle has a HV battery 10 and an auxiliary battery 20 and a DC/DC converter that allows 20 to charge 10], the apparatus comprising:
a first battery and a second battery [fig. 2, 10 and 20]; and
a controller including a processor [fig. 2, controller 40; par. 32]; and electrically connected to the first battery and the second battery [fig. 2; par. 32; the controller senses the SOC’s of both batteries, and is thus electrically connected to both batteries] and configured for:
monitoring a state of charge (SOC) value of the first battery configured to supply the electric power to a driving unit of the vehicle [par. 32-33 & 35; the HV battery is used to drive the vehicle, and the SOC of both batteries is monitored] and an SOC value and a temperature of the second battery configured to charge the first battery [par. 50; both the SOC and the temperature of battery 20 are sensed];
discharging the second battery and charging the first battery by discharging the second battery when the controller concludes that the SOC value of the first battery reaches a predetermined first SOC value [pars. 32-36; if the SOC of HV battery 10 is below a certain level (a level for “emergencies”) then the auxiliary battery is used to charge the battery]; and
reducing the discharging of the second battery when the controller concludes that the SOC value of the second battery reaches the first SOC value [pars. 17-18, 24 & 50; derating the discharging of the secondary battery to the HV battery based on the SOC of the secondary battery].
Kim does not explicitly disclose ending the discharging of the second battery based on the SOC value.
However, Sugiyama discloses an electric vehicle charging system where one battery charging the other comprising ending the discharging of the second battery based on the SOC value [pars. 76-78; an auxiliary battery can charge a main battery until the SOC of the auxiliary battery reaches a prescribed value at which point charging is completed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to further include ending the discharging of the second battery based on the SOC value for the purpose of preventing the auxiliary battery from going dead, as taught by Sugiyama (par. 61).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Kim discloses wherein when the SOC value of the first battery is higher than the first SOC value, the second battery is not discharged [pars. 35-36].
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Kim discloses wherein when the SOC value of the first battery is equal to or lower than the first SOC value and the SOC value of the second battery is equal to or greater than a second SOC value determined to be higher than the first SOC value, the second battery is discharged [pars. 17-18, 24, 32-26 & 50; when the SOC of the HV battery is below the reference value and the SOC value of the auxiliary battery is greater than SOC_b, the auxiliary battery is discharged without derating].
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Kim discloses wherein when the SOC value of the first battery is equal to or lower than the first SOC value and the SOC value of the second battery is lower than the second SOC value, the second battery is discharged in a limited manner [pars. 17-18, 24, 32-26 & 50; when the SOC of the HV battery is below the reference value and the SOC value of the auxiliary battery is less than SOC_b, the auxiliary battery is discharged but limited].
Though Kim discloses the discharging of the second battery is limited when the SOC value of the second battery is lower than the second SOC value Kim does not explicitly disclose the second battery is not discharged.
However, Sugiyama as applied in claims 1 and 12 discloses the second battery is not discharged based on an SOC level [pars. 76-78; an auxiliary battery can charge a main battery until the SOC of the auxiliary battery reaches a prescribed value at which point charging is completed].
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Kim discloses wherein when the SOC value of the first battery is equal to or lower than a third SOC value determined to be lower than the first SOC value, the first battery is charged by discharging the second battery irrespective of the SOC value of the second battery [pars. 17-18, 24, 32-26 & 50; when the SOC value of the HV battery is less than 20 to 30% (less than a first threshold) and less than a second threshold (5% to 0%) the second battery is discharged; while the current from the second battery can be limited according to the SOC of the second battery, the discharge is not stopped, thus “irrespective”].
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the discharging of the second battery is performed in an output condition determined according to the SOC value and the temperature of the second battery [pars. 17-18, 24, 32-26 & 50; the discharging of the second battery can be “derated” based on the second battery’s SOC and temperature (thus performed in an output condition “according to”)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and 17-19 are 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.
With respect to claim 7, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “counting a non-operating time in which the second battery is nether discharged nor charged when the SOC value of the second battery is equal to or greater than a second SOC value and the second battery is nether discharged nor charged; and determining whether to discharge the second battery according to the non- operating time of the second battery and an average temperature of the second battery during the non-operating time” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 7.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 7, and would therefore be allowable for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claims 8-11 and 18-19, being dependent on claims 7 and 17, respectively, would be allowable for the same reasons as claims 7 and 17, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lovett et al. US PGPUB 2016/0303992 discloses an electric vehicle charging system wherein charging between the main battery and the auxiliary battery is controlled based on the SOC’s of the batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights