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 Objections
Claims 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of Claims 7-10 discloses the word “When” capitalized in the middle of each disclosure. Appropriate correction to lower case is required.
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 2-10 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.
The term “effectively” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “effectively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this office action, the limitations “when performing one level of the cooling operations of the multi-level cooling operation cannot effectively bring the difference…” will be interpreted as “when performing one level of the cooling operations of the multi-level cooling operation cannot bring the difference…”. Further, claims 2-10 are rejected since they depend from claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2007/0120537).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses in Figs 1-9, a smart battery temperature compensation ([0048]-[0051]) method, comprising: detecting a battery temperature ([0048]) of a battery device (ref 10) in an electronic device (ref HEV, [0038]); determining whether a difference between the battery temperature and a calculated battery temperature of the battery device is within a tolerance value ([0048]-[0051]), wherein the calculated battery temperature is calculated according to a current power consumption ([0048]-[0051]) of the electronic device (ref HEV, [0048]); and when it is determined that the difference between the battery temperature of the battery device (ref 10) and the calculated battery temperature is not within the tolerance value, performing a multi-level cooling operation ([0048], control unit 7 operates motor 16 of fan 15 in distinct steps) until the difference between the battery temperature of the battery device (ref 10) and the calculated battery temperature is within the tolerance value ([0048]-[0051]).
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a “simulated” battery temperature used within the temperature compensation method. However, Yamamoto discloses a calculation unit (ref 5) estimates battery temperature based on an operation of the electronic device ([0050]-[0051]). This calculation is based on input from temperature sensors (refs 17) and fed into the calculation unit (ref 5, [0050]-[0051]). Subsequently, the cooling device control unit (ref 7) operates the motor (ref 16) of the cooling fan (ref 15) at a speed consistent with the temperature determined from the calculation unit (ref 5, [0048]-[0050]). As such, it is seen that the method of Yamamoto achieves an operation of a cooling fan of a battery derived from a calculated temperature value of a battery being operated at a given level to power the electronic device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the cooling device control unit and calculation unit of Yamamoto operate in consort to control the battery temperature to a level that optimizes performance of the battery within the electronic device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Instant dependent claim 2 discloses a multi-level cooling operation including utilizing a fan of the electronic device in an explicit seven-level consecutive cooling operation, each level having a distinct cooling effect relative to the other levels, and performed based on a comparative difference between battery temperature of the battery device and the simulated battery temperature within the tolerance value as set forth in the claim.
Yamamoto is considered to be the prior art reference of record closest to the aforementioned instant dependent claim limitations. However, it does not explicitly disclose or render obvious all of the aforementioned instant claim limitations. Yamamoto discloses the cooling device control unit (ref 7) operates the motor (ref 16) of the fan (ref 15) in steps ([0048]). These steps are disclosed as adjusting the fan in consultation with battery temperature values determined from a temperature measurement unit (ref 2) and the calculation unit (ref 5, [0048]-[0051]). However, these steps are referred to in a generalized way. Stated another way, the steps are not indicated with precision nor are they explicitly stated in the seven-step method of instant dependent claim 2. Thus, Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose or render obvious the explicit seven-step operation with associated parameters as set forth in the instant claim. Further, no reference, in combination with Yamamoto, as been found to disclose or render obvious the aforementioned instant dependent claim limitations.
Further pertinent prior art references include:
Kuronuma (US 2020/0313256) discloses in Figs 1-8, a vehicle (ref 12) cooling system (ref 10) including a battery (ref 20) and a cooling fan (ref 22). The cooling fan (ref 22) is operated at a specific level based on input from temperature sensors (refs 53, 54) which relate the temperature of the battery (ref 20) to a performance level of the vehicle (ref 12). This operation is performed via an ECU (ref 58) determining temperature parameters to operate the fan (ref 22) to achieve a desired end temperature ([0031]-[0033]). While this reference generally discloses operation of a cooling fan based on battery temperature, it does not disclose or render obvious the limitations of the instant claim.
Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0298315) discloses in Figs 1-6, a battery cooling device ([0027]) including a battery (ref 30), a cooling fan (ref 20), and a control unit (ref 10). Temperature sensors (refs 34) send temperature data to the control unit (ref 10) to operate the cooling fan (ref 20) at given levels / speeds / values dependent on said temperature data ([0056], Fig 6). However, this fan operation is stated in general terms based on temperature and not any sort of multi-level operation process as specific as that of the instant claim.
Yahnker et al. (US 2005/0202310) discloses in Figs 1-26, a battery pack (ref 4) operating an electronic device (ref 260). The battery pack (ref 4) includes a controller ([0085]) that operates a motor of a fan (ref 276) based on operating temperatures sensed via temperature sensors ([0085]). However, this reference does not disclose any sort of multi-step process similar / same as the aforementioned instant dependent claim.
As seen above, none of the aforementioned references disclose or render obvious all of the aforementioned instant dependent claim limitations. As such, instant dependent claim 2 has been found to include allowable subject matter if the above rejections were overcome. Further, claims 3-10 are objected to since they depend from claim 2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725