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 .
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Responsive to the communication filed December 15 2025, applicant elects claims 1-11 for prosecution without traverse, and claims 12-13 are currently non-elected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a path finder which (i) sets a plurality of nodes…., (ii) sets a plurality of nodes in a chargeable time period….., and (iii) finds a charging path in claim 1, a charging plan creator which creates a charging plan in claim 1, a cost assigner to assign a cost of a degradation amount or a cost of an electricity fee to each of paths between the plurality of nodes in claim 1, path finder finds a charging path in claim 1, charging plan creator creates a charging plan in claim 2, cost assigner invalidates a path in claim 3, path finder finds a charging path in claim 4, path finder finds a charging path in claim 5, path finder finds a charging path in claim 6, path finder finds a charging path in claim 7, path finder is configured to switch an index in claim 8, SOC use range identifier which derives a plurality of candidates in claim 9, path finder sets a plurality of nodes in claim 9, cost assigner to assign a degradation cost in claim 9, path finder (i) finds at lest one discharging path…., (ii) identifies a SOC use range of a discharging path…., and (iii) sets an upper limit value of the SOC use range in claim 9, SOC use range identifier which derives a plurality of candidates in claim 10, path finder (i) calculates a degradation amount …., (ii) calculates a degradation amount of a charging path …., (iii) determines a SOC use range…., and (iv) sets an upper limit value of the SOC use range determined in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, for example at least from paragraph 0042 of the specification, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 1 recites steps of “sets a plurality of nodes in a state of charge (SOC) zone that is between a target SOC and a present SOC”, “sets a plurality of nodes in a chargeable time period that is between a charging start time and a charging end time”, “finds a charging path from the present SOC at the charging start time to the target SOC at the charging end time via nodes among the plurality of nodes set in the SOC zone and the plurality of nodes set in the chargeable time period, the target SOC being set when is charged”, “creates a charging plan based on the charging path found”, “refers to at least one of a storage degradation characteristic, a charge cycle degradation characteristic, or a time-of-use electricity fee table to assign a cost of a degradation amount or a cost of an electricity fee to each of paths between the plurality of nodes, the storage degradation characteristic being defined by at least one element including at least one of the SOC or a temperature of the secondary battery, the charge cycle degradation characteristic defining a cycle degradation rate at a time of charging that is defined by at least one element including at least one of the SOC or a current rate of charging current of the secondary battery”, “finds a charging path that minimizes a total cost of paths between the nodes”. As is evident from the background, the claimed limitations regarding to charging path calculation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited charging path calculation can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements “a secondary battery provided in an electric moving body” , “a path finder”, “a charging plan creator”, and “a cost assigner” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional elements “a secondary battery provided in an electric moving body” , “a path finder”, “a charging plan creator”, and “a cost assigner” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 2 recites step of “creates a charging plan including the charging start time and a current value in each of sections of time”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 3 recites step of “invalidates a path with a current rate that exceeds an upper limit value of the charging current among the paths between the plurality of nodes, the current rate being required for passage of each of the paths”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 4 recites step of “finds a charging path that minimizes a degradation amount of a cell with a lowest state of health (SOH) among the plurality of cells”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 5 recites step of “finds a charging path that minimizes a difference in a degradation amount between the plurality of cells”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 6 recites step of “finds a charging path that minimizes a degradation amount of a cell with a lowest actual capacity among the plurality of cells”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 7 recites step of “finds a charging path that minimizes a total electricity fee of the paths between the nodes”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 8 recites step of “switch an index for determining a cost of a charging path to be minimized”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 9 recites steps of “derives a plurality of candidates for a SOC use range of the secondary battery based on power consumption predicted to be required for a next use of the electric moving body, wherein, for each of the plurality of candidates derived for the SOC use range”, “sets a plurality of nodes in the SOC use range, and sets a plurality of nodes in a use time period that is between a next use start time and a next use end time of the electric moving body”, “refers to the storage degradation characteristic and a discharge cycle degradation characteristic to assign a degradation cost to each of paths between nodes among the plurality of nodes set in the SOC use range and the use time period, the discharge cycle degradation characteristic defining a cycle degradation rate at a time of discharging that is defined by at least one element including at least one of the SOC or a current rate of discharging current of the secondary battery”, “finds, for each of the plurality of candidates for the SOC use range, at lest one discharging path that minimizes a total degradation cost of the paths between the nodes”, “identifies a SOC use range of a discharging path with a lowest total degradation cost among the at lest one discharging path each of which minimizes the total degradation cost”, and “sets, to the target SOC, an upper limit value of the SOC use range identified”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 10 recites step of “derives a plurality of candidates for a SOC use range of the secondary battery based on power consumption predicted to be required for a next use”, “calculates a degradation amount of at lest one discharging path based on a predicted discharging pattern for each of the plurality of candidates for the SOC use range derived”, “calculates a degradation amount of a charging path with a minimum degradation cost from a present SOC to an upper limit SOC for each of the plurality of candidates for the SOC use range”, “determines a SOC use range which minimizes a sum of the degradation amount of the at lest one discharging path and the degradation amount of the charging path”, and “ sets, to the target SOC, an upper limit value of the SOC use range determined”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable recording medium, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 11 recites steps of “sets a plurality of nodes in a state of charge (SOC) zone that is between a target SOC and a present SOC”, “setting a plurality of nodes in a state of charge (SOC) zone that is between a target SOC and a present SOC, and setting a plurality of nodes in a chargeable time period that is between a charging start time and a charging end time, the target SOC being set when the secondary battery is charged”, “referring to at least one of a storage degradation characteristic, a charge cycle degradation characteristic, or a time-of-use electricity fee table to assign a cost of a degradation amount or a cost of an electricity fee to each of paths between the plurality of nodes set in the SOC zone and the chargeable time period, the storage degradation characteristic being defined by at least one element including at least one of the SOC or a temperature of the secondary battery, the charge cycle degradation characteristic defining a cycle degradation rate at a time of charging that is defined by at least one element including at least one of the SOC or a current rate of charging current of the secondary battery”, “finding a charging path that minimizes a total cost of the paths between the nodes among charging paths from the present SOC at the charging start time to the target SOC at the charging end time via the nodes; and creating a charging plan based on the charging path found”. As is evident from the background, the claimed limitations regarding to charging path calculation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited charging path calculation can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional element “a secondary battery provided in an electric moving body” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component for charging. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional elements “a secondary battery provided in an electric moving body” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 7-8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WATSON et al. (hereinafter “WATSON”) (US 20200180465 A1).
As to claims 1 and 11, WATSON teaches the invention, comprising:
setting a plurality of nodes in a state of charge (SOC) zone that is between a target SOC and a present SOC of a secondary battery provided in an electric moving body, and setting a plurality of nodes in a chargeable time period that is between a charging start time and a charging end time of the secondary battery, the target SOC being set when the secondary battery is charged [Fig. 5 shows a plurality of nodes in a state of charge (SOC) zone (four static increments of energy (E1-E4)) that is between a target SOC NT and a present SOC N0 of a battery provided in an electric vehicle, and setting a plurality of nodes in a chargeable time period that is between a charging start time and a charging end time four time periods between t=0 and t=t4] [0076-00791, 0092-0094];
referring to at least one of a storage degradation characteristic, a charge cycle degradation characteristic, or a time-of-use electricity fee table to assign a cost of a degradation amount or a cost of an electricity fee to each of paths between the plurality of nodes set in the SOC zone and the chargeable time period, the storage degradation characteristic being defined by at least one element including at least one of the SOC or a temperature of the secondary battery, the charge cycle degradation characteristic defining a cycle degradation rate at a time of charging that is defined by at least one element including at least one of the SOC or a current rate of charging current of the secondary battery [0020, 0025, 0079-0080, 0088-00912, 0095-0100],
finding a charging path that minimizes a total cost of the paths between the nodes among charging paths from the present SOC at the charging start time to the target SOC at the charging end time via the nodes; and creating a charging plan based on the charging path found [0020, 00253, 0079-00804, 0088-0091, 0092-0100].
As to claim 2, WATSON teaches the charging plan creator creates a charging plan including the charging start time and a current value in each of sections of time [Fig. 5] [0024-0025, 0076-0080, 0088-0091, 0095-0100].
As to claim 7, WATSON teaches the path finder finds a charging path that minimizes a total electricity fee of the paths between the nodes [Fig. 5] [0024-0025, 0076-0080, 0088-0091, 0095-0100].
As to claim 8, WATSON teaches the path finder is configured to switch an index for determining a cost of a charging path to be minimized [0088-0091].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATSON in view of Haddad et al. (hereinafter “Haddad”) (US 8169186 B1).
As to claim 3, WATSON teaches the path finder finds a charging path that minimizes a total electricity fee of the paths between the nodes [Fig. 5] [0024-0025, 0076-0080, 0088-0091, 0095-0100]. WATSON does not explicitly teach invalidates a path with a current rate that exceeds an upper limit value of the charging current among the paths, the current rate being required for passage of each of the paths.
However, Haddad teaches a system and method for charging an electric vehicle, especially, Haddad teaches using a price threshold to determine whether the charging operation will be performed and invalidates a charge with a current rate that exceeds an upper limit value of the charging current, the current rate being required for passage of each of the charging paths [columns 14-15, lines 53-15].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Haddad with the teachings of WATSON for the purpose of determining and selecting a charging plan by further considering a predefined price threshold.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATSON in view of Ramezan Pour Safaei et al. (hereinafter “Ramezan”) (US 20200150185 A1).
As to claim 4, WATSON teaches determining a cost of a charging path to be minimized, wherein examples of such cost providers are battery optimization, carbon footprint, electric tariff/power cost optimization, electric grid optimizations, home solar energy consumption optimization and dynamic load management optimization [0088-0091]. WATSON does not explicitly teach the secondary battery includes a plurality of cells connected in series, and the battery optimization includes find a charging path that minimizes a degradation amount of a cell with a lowest state of health (SOH) among the plurality of cells.
However, Ramezan teaches a system and method for determining a pseudo-optimal charging algorithm for a battery. Especially, the battery includes a plurality of cells connected in series, and the battery optimization includes find a charging path that minimizes a degradation amount of a cell with a lowest state of health (SOH) among the plurality of cells [0027-0038, 0043-0051, 0060].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ramezan with the teachings of WATSON for the purpose of determining and selecting a charging plan based on battery optimization by further considering how to minimize a degradation amount of a cell with a lowest state of health.
As to claim 5, Ramezan teaches the secondary battery includes a plurality of cells connected in series, and the path finder finds a charging path that minimizes a difference in a degradation amount between the plurality of cells [0027-0038, 0043-0051, 0060].
As to claim 6, Ramezan teaches the secondary battery includes a plurality of cells connected in series, and the path finder finds a charging path that minimizes a degradation amount of a cell with a lowest actual capacity among the plurality of cells [0027-0038, 0043-0051, 0060].
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATSON in view of Erdem (US 20180222331 A1), and further in view of Yonezawa et al. (hereinafter “Yonezawa”) (US 20130119939 A1).
As to claims 9, WATSON teaches the path finder finds a charging path that minimizes a total electricity fee of the paths between the nodes [Fig. 5] [0024-0025, 0076-0080, 0088-0091, 0095-0100]. WATSON does not explicitly teach a SOC use range identifier which derives a plurality of candidates for a SOC use range of the secondary battery based on power consumption predicted to be required for a next use of the electric moving body, wherein, for each of the plurality of candidates derived for the SOC use range, the path finder sets a plurality of nodes in the SOC use range, and sets a plurality of nodes in a use time period that is between a next use start time and a next use end time of the electric moving body, the cost assigner refers to the storage degradation characteristic and a discharge cycle degradation characteristic to assign a degradation cost to each of paths between nodes among the plurality of nodes set in the SOC use range and the use time period, the discharge cycle degradation characteristic defining a cycle degradation rate at a time of discharging that is defined by at least one element including at least one of the SOC or a current rate of discharging current of the secondary battery, and the path finder (i) finds, for each of the plurality of candidates for the SOC use range, at lest one discharging path that minimizes a total degradation cost of the paths between the nodes, (ii) identifies a SOC use range of a discharging path with a lowest total degradation cost among the at lest one discharging path each of which minimizes the total degradation cost, and (iii) sets, to the target SOC, an upper limit value of the SOC use range identified.
However, Erdem teaches a method and system for determining charge plans and discharge plans for electric vehicles. Especially, Erdem teaches subdividing a discharging time interval, which is available for discharging the energy store, into a sequence of time segments, such that constant discharging power conditions are respectively present in the time segments in the sequence of time segments. For each time segment in the sequence of time segments, a limited number of possible charging powers with which the energy store can be discharged in the respective time segment are determined. A plurality of sequences of discharging points are determined, where each of the discharging points indicates a discharging power from the limited number of possible discharging powers for a given time segment from the sequence of time segments, and where each sequence of discharging points from the plurality of sequences of charging points indicates a sequence of discharging powers for the sequence of time segments. A sequence of discharging points from the plurality of sequences of discharging points is then selected as the discharge plan. In particular, a limited subset having the lowest cumulative partial costs can be selected [Abstract, 0013, 0034-0043].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Erdem with the teachings of WATSON for the purpose of considering load and cost optimization to determine an optimal discharge plan.
In the same field of endeavor, Yonezawa teaches a method and system for erforms charge scheduling or discharge scheduling of a battery unit to minimize deterioration of a battery unit during charging or discharging the battery. Especially, Yonezawa teaches determining and analyzing discharge patterns that derives a plurality of candidates for a SOC use range of the secondary battery based on power consumption predicted to be required, wherein, for each of the plurality of candidates derived for the SOC use range, the path finder sets a plurality of nodes in the SOC use range, and sets a plurality of nodes in a use time period that is between a next use start time and a next use end time, the cost assigner refers to the storage degradation characteristic and a discharge cycle degradation characteristic to assign a degradation cost to each of paths between nodes among the plurality of nodes set in the SOC use range and the use time period, the discharge cycle degradation characteristic defining a cycle degradation rate at a time of discharging that is defined by at least one element including at least one of the SOC or a current rate of discharging current of the secondary battery, and the path finder (i) finds, for each of the plurality of candidates for the SOC use range, at lest one discharging path that minimizes a total degradation cost of the paths between the nodes, (ii) identifies a SOC use range of a discharging path with a lowest total degradation cost among the at lest one discharging path each of which minimizes the total degradation cost, and (iii) sets, to the target SOC, an upper limit value of the SOC use range identified [0040-0049, 0051-0053, 0071, 0089-0098, 0100-0110, 0136-0140].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yonezawa with the teachings of WATSON and Erdem for the purpose of determining and selecting a charging/discharging plan based on battery optimization by further considering how to minimize deterioration of a battery unit during charging or discharging the battery.
As to claims 10, WATSON teaches the path finder finds a charging path that minimizes a total electricity fee of the paths between the nodes [Fig. 5] [0024-0025, 0076-0080, 0088-0091, 0095-0100]. WATSON does not explicitly teach a SOC use range identifier which derives a plurality of candidates for a SOC use range of the secondary battery based on power consumption predicted to be required for a next use of the electric moving body, wherein the path finder (i) calculates a degradation amount of at lest one discharging path based on a predicted discharging pattern for each of the plurality of candidates for the SOC use range derived, (ii) calculates a degradation amount of a charging path with a minimum degradation cost from a present SOC to an upper limit SOC for each of the plurality of candidates for the SOC use range, (iii) determines a SOC use range which minimizes a sum of the degradation amount of the at lest one discharging path and the degradation amount of the charging path, and (iv) sets, to the target SOC, an upper limit value of the SOC use range determined.
However, Erdem teaches a method and system for determining charge plans and discharge plans for electric vehicles. Especially, Erdem teaches subdividing a discharging time interval, which is available for discharging the energy store, into a sequence of time segments, such that constant discharging power conditions are respectively present in the time segments in the sequence of time segments. For each time segment in the sequence of time segments, a limited number of possible charging powers with which the energy store can be discharged in the respective time segment are determined. A plurality of sequences of discharging points are determined, where each of the discharging points indicates a discharging power from the limited number of possible discharging powers for a given time segment from the sequence of time segments, and where each sequence of discharging points from the plurality of sequences of charging points indicates a sequence of discharging powers for the sequence of time segments. A sequence of discharging points from the plurality of sequences of discharging points is then selected as the discharge plan. In particular, a limited subset having the lowest cumulative partial costs can be selected [Abstract, 0013, 0034-0043].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Erdem with the teachings of WATSON for the purpose of considering load and cost optimization to determine an optimal discharge plan.
In the same field of endeavor, Yonezawa teaches a method and system for erforms charge scheduling or discharge scheduling of a battery unit to minimize deterioration of a battery unit during charging or discharging the battery. Especially, Yonezawa teaches determining and analyzing discharge patterns that derives a plurality of candidates for a SOC use range of the secondary battery based on power consumption predicted to be required for a next use of the electric moving body, wherein the path finder (i) calculates a degradation amount of at lest one discharging path based on a predicted discharging pattern for each of the plurality of candidates for the SOC use range derived, (ii) calculates a degradation amount of a charging path with a minimum degradation cost from a present SOC to an upper limit SOC for each of the plurality of candidates for the SOC use range, (iii) determines a SOC use range which minimizes a sum of the degradation amount of the at lest one discharging path and the degradation amount of the charging path, and (iv) sets, to the target SOC, an upper limit value of the SOC use range determined [0040-0049, 0051-0053, 0071, 0089-0098, 0100-0110, 0136-0140].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yonezawa with the teachings of WATSON and Erdem for the purpose of determining and selecting a charging/discharging plan based on battery optimization by further considering how to minimize deterioration of a battery unit during charging or discharging the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at 5712723667. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 [0076] In the flow diagrams shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 4, the charging schedule is generated in step MS5 and in FIG. 4 again in step MS11. FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration of an exemplary approach for generating the charging schedule. The illustration shows an x-y coordinate system (energy state E—time t coordinate system), wherein a plurality of nodes N are interconnected through transitions G (depicted through arrows) between energy states E1-E4 and times t1-t4 (only a few nodes N and transitions G are labeled). A node N0 is shown at the origin of the x-y coordinate system and a node NT at the end of charging (time t4).
[0077] Each node N represents an energy state, i.e., the total amount of energy charged so far, at a given time t1-t4. Each transition G between two nodes N represents a charging action at a given power; graphically, this means that the steeper the arrow, the stronger power is used to achieve the next energy state in time. The node NT represents a target state, i.e., the amount a user wants to have the battery 27 charged at the time t4 when the electric vehicle 10 is needed.
2 [0090] Now the algorithm iterates over each of the transitions G in the whole graph and for each transition G asks each cost provider for its cost with the parameters from above. To each transition G a vector with many costs is assigned. In the end, all those costs are reduced into a single number (e.g., by simply adding them or by weighing certain costs higher than others). This single number is now the cost that the path finding algorithm uses when finding the lowest cost path. In FIG. 6, a cost of 174 is assigned to the transition G from node N1 to node N3, and a cost of zero is assigned to the transition G from node N1 to node N2.
3 [0025] In one embodiment, the charging schedule is determined by applying a lowest-cost path finding algorithm. Applied to the technology described herein, the available time between the start time and the end time and a total amount of power needed for charging the electric energy storage system are determined. The needed power is based on information obtained from the electric vehicle information source, including a current state of charge of the electric energy storage system, a desired target state of charge and a capacity of the electric energy storage system. A maximum power that can be drawn for charging based on power grid information and electric vehicle information is determined. With that information, a plurality of power states is set at selected points in time between the start time and the end time. For each power state, transitions to neighboring power states are determined, and for each transition, detail costs are determined. Further, for each transition, the detail costs are converted to a weighted number. A minimum-cost path is determined and transformed into the charging schedule.
4 [0079] As shown in FIG. 5, there are many different paths to choose to get from the node N0, which represents an initial charge state of the battery 27 prior to commencing a charging session, to the node NT at the end of the charging session. The node NT represents a charging state in which the battery 27 is charged to specification at the set time. Finding the perfect path from the node N0 to the node NT is achieved by assigning a cost to each transition G, then finding the path with the lowest costs from node N0 to node NT.