CTNF 18/244,433 CTNF 79141 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2009/0157335) . Re claim 1: Zhang et al. teaches, with emphasis by examiner: “[0006] A vehicle has an engine and an on-board electrical storage battery and is operative in alternating engine-on and engine-off states. A process for evaluating parasitic load on the battery includes determining a first estimate of the state of charge of the battery substantially just prior to the beginning of an engine-off state or during said engine-off state, and determining a second estimate of the state of charge of the battery during said engine-off state subsequent to the first estimate of the state of charge determination. An estimate of the parasitic load of the battery is determined based on the difference between the first and second estimates of state of charge of the battery .” Zhang et al. further teaches, with emphasis by examiner: “[0014] Thus, referring to FIG. 1, a process according to one embodiment estimates the battery SOC information: 1) during an engine-off state or substantially just prior to the beginning of the engine-off state (referred to as S.sub.off); and 2) at various time instances during the engine-off state (referred to as S.sub.on). The estimate of S.sub.off is substantially just prior to the beginning of the engine-off state when it reasonably approximates the state of charge at the beginning of an engine off state as described further herein below. Therefore, S.sub.off may be estimated on either side of the start of the engine-off state. SOC estimations in such fashion substantially ignore all but parasitic drains upon the battery. The difference between S.sub.off and S.sub.on is the amount energy drained from the battery in the time period therebetween. This difference represents the average parasitic load in the time period under consideration, which may be expressed in terms of current . Mathematically, the above can be represented as: .delta.=(S.sub.off-S.sub.on).times.C=P.times.T+.epsilon. (1) wherein S.sub.off and S.sub.on, are as defined above, P is the estimated parasitic load, T is the elapsed time between S.sub.off and S.sub.on, C is the battery reserved capacity in Ampere Hours, and .epsilon. is a constant that is used to capture the fact that certain (non-parasitic) loads are not turned off immediately after ignition off. .epsilon. is estimated, depending on exact vehicle features, some of which may be optional. [0015] Because S.sub.off and S.sub.on may be corrupted by unknown electronic "noise", a better parasitic load estimation may in some instances be achieved by fitting the model of the equation above with data from multiple ignition cycles . In such instances, the estimation of parasitic load may be reduced to simply solving the following set of linear system of equations with least square curve fitting: [ .delta. 1 .delta. 2 .delta. M ] = [ t 1 1 t 2 1 t M 1 ] [ P ] ( 2 ) ##EQU00001## in which M is the number of observations, t.sub.1(i=1 . . . M) is the instance of elapsed time and .delta..sub.i(i=1 . . . M) is the instance of SOC loss. The estimated coefficients P and .epsilon. are the estimated parasitic load and the SOC drop caused by the remaining load right after ignition off, respectively. [0016] Additionally, the solution provides the confidence intervals of the estimated coefficients, which describes an interval in which the estimates are accurate with certain confidence. In preferred embodiments, a 95% confidence interval is utilized; however, any desired confidence interval may be employed. In embodiments wherein all the information necessary for the estimation algorithm is stored in a computer memory (which may be volatile or non-volatile and which may be disposed on the motorized vehicle itself or at a location which is remote from the vehicle), it can be retrieved by an on-board module ("telematics module") and uploaded, such as by wireless transmission, to a data processing center during vehicle ignition-on. In such embodiment vehicle performance data may be remotely stored, monitored, and/or manipulated for diagnostic purposes . In one embodiment, statistical data concerning a particular vehicle is wirelessly transmitted to the vehicle's owner, to provide remote notification of the state of charge of the vehicle's SLI battery . [0017] Since parasitic load occurs predominantly during an ignition-off state of a motorized vehicle, in one embodiment there are two SOCs directly involved in a parasitic load estimation. The first of these SOC estimations may be substantially at the beginning of ignition-off, which may be referred to as S.sub.off. The second is the SOC estimated substantially at the end of the ignition-on state, which may be referred to as S.sub.on. In one embodiment, the difference between these two values represents the amount of electrical energy taken out of battery due to parasitic load. Therefore, their difference divided by the elapsed time between their respective measurements provides the amount of average parasitic load .” As can be seen above, detailed parasitic load tracking has long been known in the art. An owner can be alerted to the state of charge and condition of the battery, as affected by parasitic loads. Re claims 2-20: Note the discussion above. The examiner emphasizes that sensing and minimizing parasitic loads has an extremely long history in the automotive arts. In particular, one of the oldest and most widely appreciated sources of parasitic load include leaving headlights or cabin lights, or any other electronics on when the car is not running. It is very old and well-known in the art for a vehicle to automatically turn off radios, headlights, cabin lights and all sorts of other sources of parasitic load as a countermeasure against them. As an additional point, this examiner is the owner of a Tesla vehicle, which is highly sensor driven. This examiner can attest from experience that parasitic loads when the vehicle is off are reduced to an extremely low level, such that power loss is virtually undetectable. Limiting power usage when a vehicle is off is quite standard, and the claims are either anticipated in view of Zhang et al. and those facts. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM. 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 G. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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. /DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/244,433 Page 2 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/244,433 Page 3 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/244,433 Page 4 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/244,433 Page 5 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/244,433 Page 6 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/244,433 Page 7 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/244,433 Page 8 Art Unit: 2876
Prosecution Insights