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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (US 2012/0248876) in view of Lin (US 2020/0099110).
As to claims 1 and 11, Tamura discloses in figure 1, a charge transfer timing system comprising, a controller [controller 5] comprising one or more processors and configured to determine a depletion configuration of one or more loads ]element L] of a powered system, the one or more loads configured to be powered by a battery pack [battery pack 2; see figure ¶0033] of the powered system [see figure 1] , the controller configured to calculate a time required to deplete the battery pack to at least one of a target voltage or a target energy level, the controller configured to calculate the time based at least in part on a current state of charge (SOC) of the battery packs, a pack configuration of the battery pack, and the depletion configuration [the degradation /depletion time of the battery is determined based on SOC; see ¶0043 and ¶0062].
Tamura does not disclose explicitly, multiple battery packs, and controlling an operating behavior of the powered system to modify the time required to deplete the battery packs.
Lin discloses, multiple battery packs [see figure 1, power supply(10) includes plural battery packs], and controlling an operating behavior of the powered system to modify the time required to deplete the battery packs [see ¶0024; noted that Linn discloses adjusting the discharging time which is equivalent and the same as the time required to deplete the battery packs; see ¶0024].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the battery power source of Tamura with plurality of batteries and also adjust discharging time of the battery as taught by Lin in order to extend the life the battery supply.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Lin, and Heinen (US 2018/0080995).
As to claims 2 and 12, Tamura discloses all of the claim laminations except, wherein the time required to deplete the battery packs is based on one or more operating conditions of the powered system.
Heinen discloses in figures 1-3, wherein the time required to deplete the battery packs is based on one or more operating conditions of the powered system [see Abstract and ¶0043-0044].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to use load operation status in Tamura’s apparatus as taught by Heinen in order to avoid battery damage due to deep discharge.
As to claims 3 and 13 , Tamura discloses in figure 1,wherein the one or more operating conditions of the powered system change, and the time required to deplete the battery packs is repeatedly calculated based on changes to the one or more operating conditions [it is implicitly that the calculation is performed repeatedly].
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Lin , in view of Heinen, and in view of Yoshida (US 2015/0008885).
As to claims 4 and 14, Tamura discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the one or more loads of the powered system include auxiliary loads and tractive loads, wherein the changes to the one or more operating conditions include one or more of a change in the auxiliary loads, a change in the tractive loads, or a change in temperature of or around the powered system, and wherein controlling the operating behavior of the powered system to modify the time required to deplete the battery packs comprises modifying the operational behavior one or more of the loads of the powered system to extend the time required to deplete the battery packs.
Yoshida discloses in figure 1, wherein the one or more loads of the powered system include auxiliary loads and tractive loads, wherein the changes to the one or more operating conditions include one or more of a change in the auxiliary loads, a change in the tractive loads, or a change in temperature of or around the powered system, and wherein controlling the operating behavior of the powered system to modify the time required to deplete the battery packs comprises modifying the operational behavior one or more of the loads of the powered system to extend the time required to deplete the battery packs [see ¶0074 and ¶0076; discloses adjusting the load to reduce the discharging or depletion of the battery].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to adjust the load system of Tamura as taught by Yoshida in order to reduce battery deterioration and extend battery life.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Lin, and in view of Machine Translation of CN202797500, hereinafter 500’).
As to claims 5 and 15, Tamura discloses all of the claim limitations except, Harshe discloses I figure 1, sending a notification indicating the time required to deplete the battery packs to the at least one of the target voltage or the target energy level [see ¶0024-0026, and ¶0031].
500’ discloses in figure 1, sending a notification indicating the time required to deplete the battery packs to the at least one of the target voltage or the target energy level [sending time required to discharge the battery to the display element is disclosed; see page 5].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add discharge time notification means in Tamura’s apparatus as taught by 500’ in order to allow the user to manage power consumption and extend battery life.
Claims 6-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (US 2012/0248876) in view of Lin, and in view of Harshe et al. (US, ), hereinafter Harshe.
As to claims 6 and 16, Tamura discloses all of the claim limitations except, identifying one or more locations to add or remove one or more charging stations based on the time required to deplete the battery packs that is calculated.
Harshe discloses in figure 1, identifying one or more locations to add or remove one or more charging stations based on the time required to deplete the battery packs that is calculated [see ¶0030].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide plural charging stations as taught by Harshe in Tamura’s apparatus in order to optimize battery charging.
As to claims 7 and 17, Harshe discloses in figure 1,communicating the time required to deplete the battery packs to at least one of a movement planning system or a yard planning system, wherein the at last one of movement planning system or the yard planning system control movement of the powered system based at least in part on the time required to deplete the battery packs [see ¶0030].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide plural charging stations as taught by Harshe in Tamura’s apparatus in order to optimize battery charging.
As to claim 18, Harshe discloses in figure 1, wherein the controller is onboard the powered system, and the powered system is a vehicle [see Abstract].
Claims 9, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Lin , and in view of Sanford et al. (US 2016/0126761), hereinafter Sanford.
As to claim 9, Tamura discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the battery packs are arranged in multiple battery strings, and the time required to deplete the battery packs is based at least in part on a sequence or order in which the battery strings are connected with the one or more loads of the powered system.
Sanford discloses in figure 1, wherein the battery packs are arranged in multiple battery strings, and the time required to deplete the battery packs is based at least in part on a sequence or order in which the battery strings are connected with the one or more loads of the powered system [sequential discharging of the plurality of battery cells disclosed; see ¶0013].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention made to discharge battery strings in sequence as taught by Sanford in order to avoid battery damage due to over discharge.
As to claims 10 and 20, Tamura in combination with Harshe and Sanford discloses, connecting the battery strings to the one or more loads in the sequence or order based at least in part on one or both of a fault status of a battery pack of the battery strings or an imbalance in the SOCs of the battery strings [Harshe discloses plurality of battery packs and Sanford discloses discharging plurality of batteries sequentially],
As to Claims 1-7 and 9-10 the method merely recites the steps of using the elements of the device as disclosed above. Thus, the method steps will be met during the normal operation of the apparatus described above..
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 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.
For Claim 8: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: calculating the time required to deplete the battery packs in each of the powered systems; and predicting an upcoming change in an operational state of the battery packs in at least one of the powered systems based on a comparison of the times required to deplete the battery packs among the powered systems.
For Claim 19: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: the controller is configured to: calculate the time required to deplete the battery packs in each of the powered systems, and predict an upcoming change in an operational state of the battery packs in at least one of the powered systems based on a comparison of the times required to deplete the battery packs among the powered systems.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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 A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights