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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “on at least one of: an electric power amount from the external power supply consumed when the battery is warmed, or an electricity fee associated with the electric power amount; and a cruising distance of the vehicle predicted after the warming. The limitation utilizes the qualifying phrase “at least one of” and the conjunctions “and” and “or” in such a way as to render the scope of the claim indefinite. The qualifying phrase suggests alternative limitations; the conjunction “or” again points to alternative limitations; the conjunction “and” suggests the limitations are linked. It is unclear which limitations or combination of limitations are required by the claims.
Examiner interprets the limitations as three alternatives. Examiner suggests replacing “and” with “or”.
Claims 6-8 are indefinite by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Carlson US20200338959.
Regarding claim 1, Carlson US20200338959 discloses a heating control method for a vehicle including a battery chargeable with electric power from an external power supply, and an air conditioner that enables to heat a vehicle compartment with consumption of electric power of the battery, the vehicle being capable of traveling by the electric power of the battery (abstract), the heating control method comprising:
a start time acquisition step in which a start time of the vehicle is acquired based on schedule information of the vehicle (Fig. 8, 414, ¶172);
a charge step in which the battery is charged, from a first time before the start time, with the electric power from the external power supply (Fig. 7A, charging between 312 and 314);
a warming step in which the battery is warmed, from a second time between a completion time of the charge of the battery and the start time, by the electric power from the external power supply (Fig. 7A, 316, starts warming the battery to the drive start time 318 ¶137-¶140); and
a heating step in which the vehicle compartment is heated after the start time (Fig. 7a, time after drive start the cabin is heated ¶140-141),
wherein an operation mode of the heating step includes a battery-heat absorption mode in which the vehicle compartment is heated through a use of heat stored in the battery due to charge and warming of the battery (¶141), and
the first time and the second time are determined based on the start time (¶131).
Regarding claim 2, Carlson further teaches the heating control method for the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first time is a time when a predetermined time elapses since a charger mounted on the vehicle is connected to the external power supply (Carlson discloses an alternate scenario Fig. 7b wherein charging is delayed from the plug time ¶145, this occurs during routine operation of the device when the drive start time is well after plug time, see also Fig. 8, 428).
Regarding claim 3, Carlson further teaches the heating control method for the vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the warming step ends at the start time or immediately before the start time (Fig. 7A, preconditions target temperature 318 is reached at the drive start time 325).
Regarding claim 4, Carlson further teaches the heating control method for the vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the second time is determined based on:
the start time (Fig. 8, 414);
a target temperature of the battery at the start time (Fig. 8, 432);
a temperature of the battery after completion of the charge of the battery (¶201); and
an output of a heater that warms the battery until the temperature of the battery reaches the target temperature (Fig. 8, 434).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson US20200338959 in view of Lee US20230234418.
Regarding claim 5, Carlson does not expressly disclose the heating control method for the vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein a target temperature of the battery at the start time is determined based on at least one of:
an electric power amount from the external power supply consumed when the battery is warmed, or
an electricity fee associated with the electric power amount; and
a cruising distance of the vehicle predicted after the warming.
Lee US20230234418 teaches an electric vehicle thermal management system and method wherein temperature setpoints for the battery is determined based on predicted routes or cruising distance (Fig. 2, abstract). Lee teaches that considering predicted travel routes optimizes operation of the vehicle (¶11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art method to determine target battery temperature at least partially based on predicted travel route, as taught by Lee, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving electric vehicle thermal management systems with the known predictable result of optimizing energy efficiency.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson US20200338959 in view of Lee US20230234418 and in view of Kidston US20110191220.
Regarding claim 6, Carlson does not expressly disclose the heating control method for the vehicle according to claim 5, wherein a user is allowed to select an electricity fee priority mode in which priority is given to reducing the electricity fee or a cruising distance priority mode in which priority is given to increasing the cruising distance.
Kidston US20110191220 teaches a method for charging an electric vehicle wherein a user is allowed to select an electricity fee priority mode in which priority is given to reducing the electricity fee or a cruising distance priority mode in which priority is given to increasing the cruising distance (Fig. 2, ¶25-¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art method such that the user is allowed to select a priority mode, as taught by Kidston, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving chagrins methods with the known predictable result of accommodating user preferences.
Regarding claim 7, the previously combined references teach the heating control method for the vehicle according to claim 6, wherein in the electricity fee priority mode, an upper limit value is set for the electric power amount from the external power supply or the electricity fee associated with the electric power amount (Kidston, ¶26 discusses rate or fee limits).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “the upper limit value is set based on a comparison between an electric power amount in the outside-air-heat absorption mode and an electric power amount in the battery- heat absorption mode, or a comparison between a cruising distance of the vehicle in the outside-air-heat absorption mode and a cruising distance of the vehicle in the battery-heat absorption mode.” [emphasis added]. This appears to be a typographical error intended to read “an electric power amount of the vehicle in the outside-air-heat absorption mode…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach of make obvious the combination of features required by claim 8. While the prior art teaches various user preferences and fee limits (Kidston, ¶26, inter alia), the prior lacks sufficient, teaching or motivation to provide the particularly claimed combination of steps for determining the fee limit as required by claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deepak Deean whose telephone number is (571)270-3347. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 517-272-6460. 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.
/DEEPAK A DEEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
