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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-13, filed January 22, 2026, with respect to the objection(s) and rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant argues on pg. 8, regarding the claim objection presented in the previous office action, that:
“The claims are amended to correct the informalities noted by the Examiner. The withdrawal of the objection to the claims is respectfully requested.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees. Therefore, the claim objection(s) presented in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pgs. 8-9, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented in the previous office action, that:
“The claims have been corrected to eliminate the informality noted by the examiner. The above amendments clarify that it is sufficient that the replacement is concluded and not necessarily physically performed. That is, the method being performed by a control unit, the control unit need only conclude that a replacement has been performed. Furthermore, once the replacement is concluded, a suggested reconfiguration is provided, and not necessarily the physical replacement of electrical energy storage packs, in step S1114. it is respectfully submitted that all pending claims are in all aspects in compliance with 35 U.S.C.”
In response, the examiner finds the arguments mostly not persuasive and mostly disagrees. First, several 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections cited in the previous office action were properly amended, however, some were not, which are cited below. Second, having amended to clarify that an electrical energy storage pack replacement is concluded and not necessarily replaced has removed the limitation of the originally filed claims of “performing a reconfiguration” and has amended the limitation to disclose “providing, by the control unit, a suggested reconfiguration,” wherein independent claim 11 discloses substantially identical limitations. Having amended to remove this limitation now incorporates interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 101 for both independent claims their dependent claims, which is cited below.
Applicant argues on pg. 9, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are amended to address the rejection. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pg. 11, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Hyde does not disclose to conclude that a replacement has been performed, and to determine a load sharing factor that is evaluated to suggest a further configuration of the electrical energy storage. More specifically, Hyde does not describe the above noted claim elements.
Okamoto does not support Hyde to render the claimed invention obvious. Turning to Okamoto may teach to select battery packs with similar degrees od degradation ([0075]). there is nothing in Okamoto that suggests performing an evaluation of the battery after replacement one of or more battery packs that may result in a further replacement being made.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument mostly not persuasive and respectfully mostly disagrees. First, independent claims 1, after amendments, discloses “concluding, by the control unit, an electrical energy storage pack replacement.” Applicant has stricken language of “is performed” which has now caused clarity issues, which are cited below. Independent claim 11 also includes the same clarity issue, which is also cited below. Second, Hyde in view of Okamoto, as cited in the previous office action, is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing amended subject matter. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hyde et al. (US 2015/0239365 A1) in view of Okamoto et al. (EP 4 002 547 A1), in further view of Zeng et al. (US 2021/0021137 A1).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-15 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1, line 20 discloses “concluding, by the control unit, an electrical energy storage pack replacement.” This appears to be an incomplete sentence and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the limitations. For the purposes of the present examination, “concluding, by the control unit, an electrical energy storage pack replacement is performed” is construed. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the load" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “a load” is construed. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1, lines 17-19 disclose “determining, by the control unit, a load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs.” A reconfiguration is not disclosed as having been performed prior to the cited limitation. Said another way, an action that relies on a precursor may not be performed if the precursor to that action is not explicitly disclosed as occurring. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, a reconfiguration must necessarily occur prior to the determining a load distribution step. However, further clarification is required.
Claims 2-4, 7-10, and 14-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 11, line 19 discloses “conclude an electrical energy storage pack replacement.” This appears to be an incomplete sentence which makes the limitations unclear, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “conclude an electrical energy storage pack replacement is performed” is construed. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-4, 712, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 14-15 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A method for determining an electrical energy storage pack replacement configuration of a propulsion electrical energy storage of a vehicle comprising several electrical energy storage packs, the method comprising:
acquiring, by a control unit, logged vehicle driving pattern data including charging session data from an on-board memory storage device or from a remote server through a cloud connectivity, the driving pattern data includes at least one of: average current flow through each of the electrical energy storage packs, peak power points for the electrical energy storage packs, and a statistical distribution of power for a specific vehicle usage type,
classifying, by the control unit, a vehicle usage type using vehicle driving pattern data of the vehicle as input data;
determining, by the control unit, a minimum state of health required for usage according to the classified vehicle usage type;
determining, by the control unit, a state of health of each of the electrical energy storage packs of the vehicle;
concluding, by the control unit, a replacement of the electrical energy storage packs having a state of health lower than the minimum state of health;
determining, by the control unit, a load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs; and
concluding, by the control unit, an electrical energy storage pack replacement,
determining, by the control unit, a load sharing factor indicative of a load distribution between the electrical energy storage packs after configuration, and
comparing the load sharing factor to a predetermined condition, and depending on the outcome of the comparison, providing, by the control unit, a suggested reconfiguration of the electrical energy storage to more equally distribute the load across the electrical energy storage packs.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses acquiring, logged vehicle driving pattern data including charging session data; the driving pattern data includes at least one of: average current flow, peak power points, and a statistical distribution of power; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; classifying, a vehicle usage type using vehicle driving pattern data; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or observation; determining, a minimum state of health required for usage according to the classified vehicle usage type; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or observation; determining, a state of health; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or observation; concluding, a replacement having a state of health lower than the minimum state of health; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or observation; determining, a load distribution after reconfiguration; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or observation; concluding, replacement; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation; determining, a load sharing factor indicative of a load distribution after configuration, and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; comparing the load sharing factor to a predetermined condition; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
by a control unit,
from an on-board memory storage device or from a remote server through a cloud connectivity,
by the control unit,
by the control unit,
by the control unit,
by the control unit,
by the control unit,
by the control unit,
by the control unit,
by the control unit,
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
and depending on the outcome of the comparison, providing, a suggested reconfiguration to more equally distribute the load
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
through each of the electrical energy storage packs
for a specific vehicle usage type
of the vehicle
of each of the electrical energy storage packs of the vehicle;
of the electrical energy storage packs
between electrical energy storage packs
including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs;
an electrical energy storage pack
between the electrical energy storage packs
of the electrical energy storage
across the electrical energy storage packs.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-10 and 14-15 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 11-12 are directed to a system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 11 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A system for determining an electrical energy storage pack replacement configuration of an electrical energy storage system of a vehicle comprising several electrical energy storage packs, the system comprising:
sensors for collecting driving pattern data indicative of the use pattern of the vehicle and for collecting electrical energy storage sensor data, and
a control unit configured to:
acquire the vehicle driving pattern data,
classify a vehicle usage type using a classification model and the vehicle driving pattern data;
determine, using a power requirement model, a minimum state of health required for vehicle usage according to the classified vehicle usage type;
determine a state of health of each of the electrical energy storage packs of the vehicle using the electrical energy storage sensor data;
conclude to replace the electrical energy storage packs having state of health lower than the minimum state of health;
determine a load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs; and
conclude an electrical energy storage pack replacement,
determine a load sharing factor indicative of a load distribution between the electrical energy storage packs,
compare the load sharing factor to a predetermined conditions; and
depending on the outcome of comparing the load sharing factor to a predetermined condition, provide a suggested reconfiguration of the electrical energy storage pack to more equally distribute a load across the electrical energy storage packs.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 11 discloses collecting driving pattern data indicative of the use pattern and for collecting data, and; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; acquire driving pattern data; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; classify a vehicle usage type using a classification model and the vehicle driving pattern data; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; determine, using a power requirement model, a minimum state of health required; ; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; determine a state of health using the data; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; conclude to replace having state of health lower than the minimum state of health; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation; determine a load distribution after reconfiguration; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; conclude replacement; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation; determine a load sharing factor indicative of a load distribution; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; compare the load sharing factor to a predetermined conditions; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation and/or performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 11 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 11 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 11 further recites:
a control unit configured to:
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 11 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
depending on the outcome of comparing the load sharing factor to a predetermined condition, provide a suggested reconfiguration to more equally distribute a load
Analyzing this additional element of claim 11 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
sensors for
of the vehicle
electrical energy storage sensor
the vehicle
for vehicle usage according to the classified vehicle usage type;
of each of the electrical energy storage packs of the vehicle
the electrical energy storage sensor
the electrical energy storage packs
between electrical energy storage packs
including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs; and
electrical energy storage pack
between the electrical energy storage packs,
of the electrical energy storage pack
across the electrical energy storage packs.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 11 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 11 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 12 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 11 and therefore does not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 1-4, 7-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al. (US 2015/0239365 A1), hereinafter Hyde, in view of Okamoto et al. (EP 4 002 547 A1), hereinafter Okamoto, in further view of Zeng et al. (US 2021/0021137 A1), hereinafter Zeng.
Regarding claim 1, Hyde discloses A method for determining an electrical energy storage pack replacement configuration of a propulsion electrical energy storage of a vehicle comprising several electrical energy storage packs, the method comprising:
acquiring, by a control unit, logged vehicle driving pattern data including charging session data from an on-board memory storage device or from a remote server through a cloud connectivity, (Hyde, e.g., see fig. 1A illustrating a vehicle management system and an energy storage system; see also fig. 16 illustrating a schematic flow diagram of the operation of a management system with predictive control for a vehicle system such as an energy storage system for a vehicle; see also para. [0094] disclosing as shown in figs. 2A-2B, 6, and 7A-7C, the management/control system for a vehicle system such as an energy storage system (shown as a battery system) may be distributed to computing/data resources on multiple systems on the vehicle (e.g., at a system/subsystem/component level) or may be centralized (e.g., operated at a central control/management system for the vehicle). As shown schematically in fig. 7, according to an exemplary embodiment, the control/management system for a battery system may comprise a computing system (e.g., processor and etc.) with a control/management program or subroutines (e.g., such as in a computation/data model with algorithms and/or data tables) and data storage for the control/management system; see also table D explicitly disclosing duty/route event log (VS); examiner notes that VS is disclosed in Table A as vehicle data storage; and duty/route activity/trip log (track) (VI/VS/ND); see also Table B explicitly disclosing charge/discharge history (cycles) (depth of discharge) (VD/SC), State of charge (SOC) (VD/SC), Self-discharge rate (VD), and overcharge/thermal event record (VD); see also Table D explicitly disclosing route/duty (event/trip/activity) to include Duty/route type (VS/ND), Duty/route classification (VS/ND), Duty/route event history (VS/ND), Duty/route event log (VS), Duty/route history (VS), Duty/route activity history (VS/ND), Duty/route activity/trip log (track) (VI/VS/ND) Duty/route trip-energy demand history, etc.; see also para. [0084] disclosing data storage and interchange may be provided by any suitable method or devices, including but not limited to USB/USB-connected or other storage/devices, network-connected storage devices, cloud-based systems/infrastructure, etc. (e.g., interchangeable/storage and use of data shown schematically as data D in figs. 14 and 22); see also para. [0097] disclosing data and information for the vehicle can be obtained directly from components and devices in use/operation, from sensors and instrumentation, from user input, from internal data storage (e.g., local to the vehicle), from external sources (e.g., remote from the vehicle such as available from connectivity to networks such as internet), etc. See e.g., TABLE A).
the driving pattern data includes at least one of: average current flow through each of the electrical energy storage packs, peak power points for the electrical energy storage packs, and a statistical distribution of power for a specific vehicle usage type, (Hyde, e.g., see para. [0095] disclosing the energy storage system may comprise any of a variety of energy storage devices such as a capacitor system (e.g., capacitor circuits/devices such as an ultra-capacitor) and/or a fuel cell system in combination with a battery system; as indicated schematically in fig. 9c, the energy storage system with fuel cell system and/or a capacitor system may be configured with a battery system to provide an energy storage system to handle varying levels of demand such as peak demand (charge and discharge) using each component according to its capability (e.g., a capacitor to deliver current at high-rate and the fuel cell system to extend capacity and rechargeable battery modules for storage capacity and delivery of energy)).
classifying, by the control unit, a vehicle usage type using vehicle driving pattern data of the vehicle as input data; (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 14 illustrating data/information sets (D); see also Table C disclosing vehicle type and use; see also Table D disclosing a route/duty (event/trip/activity); See also Table F disclosing operator/driver identification and preferences; see also Table G disclosing Road conditions/traffic (at location/on route/at destination; see also Table H disclosing Date/time/season; see also para. [0102] disclosing data sources provide data relating to operating conditions for the vehicle in duty, such as duty or route of the vehicle, operator of the vehicle, type of vehicle, configuration of vehicle systems, operating conditions of the vehicle in the duty and environmental conditions of the vehicle in the duty. Operating conditions available from data sources (on the vehicle and external to the vehicle) will include at least one of temperature, weather, weather forecast, time of day, day of week, day of year, global positioning system (GPS) location data, traffic conditions at location, route information for the duty and available resources for vehicle system; see also paras. [0113]-[0116] disclosing as indicated in fig. 14, the data/information sets may comprise route/duty data (e.g., database containing items of data and information as listed in Table D), driver/operator data (e.g., database containing items of data and information as listed in Table F), vehicle data (e.g., database containing items of data and information as listed in Table C), vehicle systems and components data (e.g., database containing items of data and information as listed in Tables B and C), operating conditions data (e.g., database containing items of data information as listed in Tables G and H), environmental/other conditions data (e.g., database containing items of data and information as listed in Table I), resource/facility data (e.g., database containing items of information as listed in Table E); referring to figs. 14 and 16, a method of managing an energy storage system may comprise the steps of obtaining data relating to the vehicle in data categories from data sources, determining a route and duty; see also fig. 25 illustrating a flow chart, specifically to “determine vehicle and duty and conditions; see also para. [0174] disclosing in fig. 25; as indicated, the method uses data from data sources including battery module data and other data (see Figs. 14, 15A-15B and 23) and Tables A and B). The vehicle (e.g., vehicle type, vehicle system configuration, etc. see Table C) is determined; in addition to the anticipated duty of the vehicle (e.g., available resources, router, activities, duration, operator, etc., see Table D) as well as conditions of operation (e.g., time of day, weather, traffic, etc., see Tables E, F, G, H, and I) can be considered (among other considerations) in allocation and development of inventory of components such as battery modules for a battery system of a vehicle as indicated in figs. 11A-11E and 22-25).
determining, by the control unit, a minimum state of health required for usage according to the classified vehicle usage type; determining, by the control unit, a state of health of each of the electrical energy storage packs of the vehicle; (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also para. [0176] disclosing in the management of the life-cycle of a battery module, operating parameters (such as categories of use) may be correlated to data as to the status/phase of life-cycle of the battery module. As indicated in figs. 24A-24B, a new battery module is indicated as A phase; a mid-life battery module is indicated as B phase; an end-of-life battery module is indicated as C phase. A battery module may be classified as in a phase based on evaluation of data such as age, time in service, charge-recharge cycles, energy throughput, service/maintenance records, use/event history, etc. as well as measurements of performance and condition (e.g., state of health, impedance, capacity, etc.); periodic reclassification of the battery module may occur during the life-cycle of an interchangeable reuseable component such as a battery module; see also para. [0179] disclosing referring to figs. 24A-24B, use under operating parameters in the A classification would be characterized by greater relative demand for performance and need of capability/reliability as would be expected from a battery module in the A phase of life-cycle; use under operating parameters in the B classification would be characterized by moderate relative demand for performance and need of capability/reliability as would be expected from a battery module in the B phase of life-cycle; use under operating parameters in the C classification would be characterized by moderate relative demand for performance and need of capability/reliability as would be expected from a battery module in the C phase of life-cycle. As the battery module advances along the life-cycle, the level of demand/intensity of the recommended operating parameters of use are able to be reduced; the cost and warranty of the battery module may also be reclassified (e.g., reduced) as the battery module advances along the life-cycle; examiner notes that a C phase of life-cycle is construed as an end-life-cycle and a minimum state of health, wherein all of A phase, B phase, and C phase are construed as a state of health of each of the electrical energy storage packs of the vehicle, as illustrated in fig. 23).
concluding, by the control unit, a replacement of the electrical energy storage packs having a state of health at an end-of-life phase; (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also para. [0183] disclosing after the end-of-life phase, the battery module is expected to be recycled, the inventory management system can work to relocate battery modules for use in vehicles or in inventory at a location nearer recycling facilities at the end-of-life phase as to reduce the distance and cost of shipping to recycling facilities; see also fig. 26B illustrating a flow chart wherein the end result of monitoring the life cycles of the batteries is to recycle/reclaim).
Hyde is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: lower than the minimum state of health; and
determining, by the control unit, a load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs; and
concluding, by the control unit, an electrical energy storage pack replacement,
determining, by the control unit, a load sharing factor indicative of a load distribution between the electrical energy storage packs after configuration, and
comparing the load sharing factor to a predetermined condition, and depending on the outcome of the comparison, providing, by the control unit, a suggested reconfiguration of the electrical energy storage to more equally distribute the load across the electrical energy storage packs.
However, Okamoto further discloses lower than the minimum state of health; (Okamoto, e.g., see paras. [0033]-[0035] disclosing the SOH is defined as a ratio of current full charge capacity to initial full charge capacity. The SOH having a lower value (closer to 0%) indicates that degradation progresses more. The SOH may be obtained by measuring the capacity through full charging and discharging, or may be obtained by adding storage degradation and cycle degradation).
determining, by the control unit, a load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs; and (Okamoto, e.g., see paras. [0091]-[0092] disclosing upon receiving the abnormality signal indicating the abnormality of battery pack (2), notification unit (114) of monitoring device (1) notifies mobile terminal device (6) held by the person in charge of the battery of a battery replacement instruction including the identification number and the position information on electric vehicle (3) in which the battery abnormality occurs. When receiving the instructions through mobile terminal device (6), the person in charge of the battery goes to electric vehicle (3) with spare battery pack (2), and replaces battery pack (2) in which the abnormality occurs with normal spare battery pack 92) brought by the person in charge; see also fig. 9 illustrating a subroutine as an example of processing for selecting a combination of battery packs in the flowchart of fig. 8; see also paras. [0067] – [0069] disclosing acquisition unit (111) acquires the amount of power consumption predicted by prediction unit (112) (step S171). Acquisition unit (111) acquires the SOC and the SOH of each of the battery packs (2) stored in battery pack storage device (4) (step S172). Control device (40) of battery pack storage device (4) or monitoring device (1) calculates the SOC and SOH of each battery pack (2). Selecting unit (113) calculates the current charge capacity [kWh] of each battery pack (2) based on the SOC, SOH, and initial capacity of each battery pack (2); construed as a load distribution. Selecting unit (113) derives all combinations of battery packs (2) in which an amount of electricity (hereinafter, referred to as necessary capacity) is larger than or equal to a value obtained by adding a predetermined margin to the predicted amount of power consumption (step S173)).
concluding, by the control unit, an electrical energy storage pack replacement, determining, by the control unit, a load sharing factor indicative of a load distribution between the electrical energy storage packs after configuration, and (Okamoto, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with regard to fig. 9; see also figs. 10(a)-(10b) illustrating tables of specific examples of selection conditions under which a combination of battery packs (2) is selected. Figs. 10(a) and 10(b) illustrate the examples in which the necessarily capacity is 1.6 kWh. The initial capacity of battery pack 2 is 1 kWh; examiner notes that fig. 10(a) explicitly shows a load sharing capacity of 0.8 kWh for both batteries 0013 and 0009 to produce a total capacity of 1.6 kWh, and shows a load sharing capacity of 0.53 kWh for batteries 0007, 0011, and 0016 to produce a total capacity of 1.6 kWh; examiner further notes fig. 10(b) explicitly illustrates a load sharing capacity of 0.8 kWh for both batteries 0005 and 0002 to produce a total capacity of 1.6 kWh, and shows a load sharing capacity of 1.0 kWh and 0.6 kWh to produce a total capacity of 1.6 kWh; examiner further notes the difference of capacity and/or SOH is construed as the load sharing factor; see also paras. [0070]-[0079] disclosing in fig. 10(a), combination candidate “A” is a combination of battery packs of battery Nos. 0013 and 0009. The battery pack of battery No. 0013 has a current capacity of 0.8 kWh and an SOH of 90%. The battery pack of battery No. 0009 also has a current capacity of 0.8 kWh and an SOH of 90%. Both of the battery packs are charged with a capacity being lower than the full charge capacity. Combination candidate “B” is a combination of battery packs of battery Nos. 0007, 0011, and 0016. The battery pack of battery No. 0007 has a current capacity of 0.53 kWh and an SOH of 60%. The battery pack of battery No. 0011 has a current capacity of 0.53 Wh and an SOH of 60%. The battery pack of battery No. 0016 also has a current capacity of 0.53 Wh and an SOH of 60%. The three battery packs are charged with their capacities being lower than the full charge capacity. Combination candidate “A” is selected from candidates “A” and “B” because of the smaller number of parallel-connected power storage packs).
comparing the load sharing factor to a predetermined condition, and (Okamoto, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with regard to figs. 10(a)-10(b); see also paras. [0070] and [0075]-[0079] disclosing that figs. 10(a) and 10(b) are table of specific examples of selection conditions under which a combination of battery packs (2) is selected. Fig. 10(b) illustrates an example of the selection conditions under which the smaller the variations in degradation is, the higher the priority is. In fig. 10(b), combination candidate “A” is a combination of battery packs of battery Nos. 0005 and 0002. the battery pack of the battery No. 0005 has a current capacity of 0.8 kWh and an SOH of 80%. The battery pack of battery No. 0002 also has a current capacity of 0.8 kWh and an SOH of 80%. Both the battery packs are charged to the full charge capacity. Combination candidate “B” is a combination of battery packs of battery Nos. 0004 and 0008. The battery pack of battery No. 0004 has a current capacity of 1.0 kWh and an SOH of 100%. The battery pack of battery No. 0008 has a current capacity of 0.6 Wh and an SOH of 60%. Both the battery packs are charged to the full charge capacity; wherein the capacity and SOH, wherein the differences of capacity and/or SOH as cited above are construed as the load sharing factors, and wherein the capacity and/or SOH are compared to the “full charge capacity” which is construed as a predetermined condition).
depending on the outcome of the comparison, providing, by the control unit, a suggested reconfiguration of the electrical energy storage to deter deterioration of the battery pack. (The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of providing, by the control unit, a suggested reconfiguration of the electrical storage to deter deterioration of the battery pack is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., depending on the outcome of the comparison, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; e.g., providing a suggested reconfiguration to be performed; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight. Nevertheless, Okamoto, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with regard to fig. 10(b) and paras. [0070]-[0075]; see also paras. [0078]-[0079] disclosing combination candidate “A” is selected from candidates “A” and “B” because of a smaller variation in SOH. Various selection conditions are conceivable in addition to the selection conditions described as the specific examples in figs. 10(a) and 10(b). For example, the selection condition may be determined such that as the deterioration progresses, the priority is higher. In this case, a combination having the smallest total SOH is selected from the combination candidates.
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Hyde with Okamoto’s lower than the minimum state of health; and determining, by the control unit, a load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs; and concluding, by the control unit, an electrical energy storage pack replacement, determining, by the control unit, a load sharing factor indicative of a load distribution between the electrical energy storage packs after configuration, and comparing the load sharing factor to a predetermined condition, and depending on the outcome of the comparison, providing, by the control unit, a suggested reconfiguration of the electrical energy storage to deter deterioration of the battery pack for at least the reasons that utilizing similarly characterized battery packs in a vehicular system ensures that contributions from the individual batteries avoid excessive discharge or thermal runaway, which will damage/destroy the battery system and the vehicle).
Hyde in view of Okamoto is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: more equally distribute the load across the electrical energy storage packs.
However, Zeng further discloses more equally distribute the load across the electrical energy storage packs. (Zeng, e.g., see para. [0041] disclosing the current output by each battery depends upon the internal discharging characteristics such as internal resistance of this battery, and is distributed in a certain proportion. Thus, the connection of each battery to the power supply system can be completely determined by the hardware circuit automatically, and the current load can be equally distributed between batteries automatically).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Hyde in view of Okamoto with Zeng’s more equally distribute the load across the electrical energy storage packs for at least the reasons that batteries that discharge early can be automatically isolated from other batteries, and thereby maximize battery capacity, as taught by Zeng; e.g., see paras. [0023]-[0024].
Regarding claim 2, Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method according to claim 1, wherein the load sharing factor fulfils a predetermined conditions includes that the load sharing factor is within a predetermined interval, wherein when the load sharing factor is concluded to be within the predetermined interval, concluding that the electrical energy storage pack replacement is completed.
However, Okamoto further discloses wherein the load sharing factor fulfils a predetermined conditions includes that the load sharing factor is within a predetermined interval, wherein when the load sharing factor is concluded to be within the predetermined interval, concluding that the electrical energy storage pack replacement is completed. (Okamoto, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also para. [0117] disclosing in the monitoring device (1) according to item (1), the plural power storage packs (2) are connected in parallel to one another and mounted on the electric vehicle (3). The selecting unit (113) is configured to select a combination of power storage packs (2) having a smallest number of parallel-connected power storage packs among combinations of the plural power storage packs (2) each having a capacity larger than or equal to an amount of electricity obtained by adding a margin to the amount of power consumption of the electric vehicle (3) predicted by the prediction unit (112); see also para. [0119]; see also para. [0121] disclosing the monitoring device (1) according to item 1 may further include a notification unit (114) configured to notify storage device (4) of information indicating the combination of the power storage packs (2) specified by selecting unit (113) among the plural power storage packs (2) stored in the storage device (4)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng’s method with Okamoto’s load sharing factor fulfils a predetermined conditions includes that the load sharing factor is within a predetermined interval, wherein when the load sharing factor is concluded to be within the predetermined interval, concluding that the electrical energy storage pack replacement is completed for at least the reasons that a smallest amount of batteries will reduce the total weight of the power storage packs to be mounted on the electric vehicle, as taught by Okamoto; e.g., see para. [0118].
Regarding claim 3, Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng discloses: The method according to claim 2, wherein when the load sharing factor is concluded to fall outside the predetermined threshold, repeat the step of determining a load distribution with a further combination of replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs, and the step of determining a load sharing factor and performing a reconfiguration. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of repeat the step of determining a load distribution with a further combination of replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs, and the step of determining a load sharing factor and performing a reconfiguration is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., when the load sharing factor is concluded to fall outside the predetermined threshold, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; e.g., repeat the step of determining… to be performed; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4, Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein each vehicle usage type is based on modelled or estimated power and energy requirements for the associated vehicle usage type. (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also table A disclosing a legend of data sources, table B disclosing data from energy storage systems (e.g., battery systems), and table C disclosing the vehicle type and use; see also para. [0174] disclosing in fig. 25; as indicated, the method uses data from data sources including battery module data and other data (see Figs. 14, 15A-15B and 23) and Tables A and B). The vehicle (e.g., vehicle type, vehicle system configuration, etc. see Table C) is determined; in addition to the anticipated duty of the vehicle (e.g., available resources, router, activities, duration, operator, etc., see Table D) as well as conditions of operation (e.g., time of day, weather, traffic, etc., see Tables E, F, G, H, and I) can be considered (among other considerations) in allocation and development of inventory of components such as battery modules for a battery system of a vehicle as indicated in figs. 11A-11E and 22-25; see also para. [0086] disclosing multiple individual or fleet vehicles may be aggregated or associated in one or more groups or fleets (e.g., fleets or groups according to common or shared attributes such as type, manufacturer, model, location, service center/pattern, component configuration , driver/operator association or type, use or use history, etc.); see also para. [0097] disclosing components of the vehicle systems such as the energy storage system may have data models (e.g., data records and stored data sets and computational models/algorithms or tables to model component performance); data models and data sets for vehicle systems and components may be acce3ssed and used as data sources for the management system as shown schematically in fig. 14; see also para. [0137] disclosing the management plan will be created in accordance with the conditions predicted to be encountered by the vehicle in the duty/route according to the capability of the vehicle as configured. With a battery system configured with a battery pack comprising high-rate battery modules, operation of the vehicle by the plan may be directed as follows: (a) advance of anticipated periods of available energy from the regenerative braking system such as on downhill grades or in stop-and-go traffic conditions the battery system will discharge high-rate battery modules so that regenerative power can be accepted and used for charging; (b) in advance of anticipated increase demand such as on uphill grades or entering an expressway from an on-ramp the system will charge the high-rate battery modules so that power is available for discharge and acceleration of the vehicle; (c) identified available periods of reduced intensity of use can be used for management operations such as voltage-level shifting or cell balancing between battery modules).
Regarding claim 7, Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng discloses: The method according to claim 1, comprising continuously monitoring the state of health of the electrical energy storage packs to evaluate whether a replacement is needed, and (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also para. [0190] disclosing as indicated in fig. 29, ongoing monitoring of data sets can be performed and the analytics function may be ongoing based on data made available from data sources. Data analytics can be used to maintain and/or enhance the quality of data of any of a wide variety of types and sources (including but not limited to data/information of the types indicated in Tables B through I and other items of data/information used by or acquired from vehicle systems, management systems, data centers, data sources, etc.; see also table B explicitly disclosing that an ongoing/continuous monitoring includes State of health (SOH) (VD/SC)).
if a replacement of an electrical energy storage is conclusive, provide a signal indicative thereof to a user. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of provide a signal indicative thereof to a user is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., if a replacement of an electrical energy storage is conclusive,, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; e.g., provide a signal indicative thereof to a user to be performed; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method according to claim 1, wherein reconfiguring the electrical energy storage packs comprises:
determining which electrical energy storage packs to replace; determining a combination of replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs depending on the classified vehicle usage type and an associated minimum state of health; modelling a power distribution across the combination of replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs to determine load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration; reconfigure the electrical energy storage packs based on an outcome of the modelling.
However, Okamoto further discloses: determining which electrical energy storage packs to replace; (Okamoto, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also para. [0079] disclosing the selection condition may be determined such that as the deterioration progresses, the priority is higher. In this case, a combination having the smallest total SOH is selected from the combination candidates. In this case, battery pack (2) may be used up quickly, and the depreciation of battery pack (2) may be accelerated. In addition, when battery packs (2) are desired to be replaced at about the same time, a combination of battery packs (2) is selected such that the SOHs of battery packs (2) approach their average value or median value).
determining a combination of replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs depending on the classified vehicle usage type and an associated minimum state of health; (Okamoto, e.g., see rejection above and applied to claim 1; see also fig. 8 to step S16 disclosing predict amount of power consumption by applying number of users, score information, course information, and weather information to predict model, and step S17 disclosing select combination of battery packs to be used; see also para. [0060] disclosing acquisition unit (111) acquires course information from golf course map information holder (124) (step (S14). The course information includes the distance from a tee ground to the hole position on the day, the position and distance of a cart road, the state of lawn in the course, the inclination state of the course, and the like; construed as vehicle usage type; see also fig. 9 and para. [0067] disclosing fig. 9 illustrates a subroutine as an example of the processing for selecting a combination of battery packs (2) in the flowchart shown in fig. 8. Acquisition unit (111) acquires the amount of power consumption predicted by prediction unit (112) (step S171). Acquisition unit (111) acquires the SOC and the SOH of each of the battery packs (2) stored in battery pack storage device (4) (step S172); see also figs. 10(a)-10(b) illustrating combinations of candidate batteries; see also para. [0079] disclosing various selection conditions are conceivable in addition to the selection conditions described as the specific examples in figs. 10(a) and 10(b). The selection condition may be determined such that as the deterioration progresses, the priority is higher. In this case, a combination having the smallest total SOH is selected from the combination candidates. In this case, battery pack (2) may be used up quickly, and the depreciation of battery pack (2) may be accelerated. In addition, when battery packs (2) are desired to be replaced at about the same time, a combination of battery packs (2) is selected such that the SOHs of battery packs (2) in the golf course approach their average value or median value; see also para. [0090] disclosing battery information holder (121) may manage only the current values of the SOC and SOH of each battery pack (2), or may accumulate the usage history of each battery pack (2))
modelling a power distribution across the combination of replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs to determine load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration; (Okamoto, e.g., see rejection applied above and to claim 1; see also fig. 8 to steps (S16) and (S20); see also para. [0079] disclosing when battery packs (2) are desired to be replaced at about the same time, a combination of battery packs (2) is selected such that the SOHs of the battery packs (2) in the golf course approach their average value or median value; construed as a power distribution; see also para. [0096] disclosing the stored travel distance information may be used when prediction unit (112) predicts the amount of power consumption of electric vehicle (3) in step (S16). For example, prediction unit (112) corrects the score information on each user based on the average value of the past travel distances of electric vehicle (3) of each user. When the past average travel distance of a target user is longer than a reference value using the average travel distance of the user having the same score as the reference value, the score value of the user is multiplied by a coefficient exceeding 1 (one). On the contrary, when the past average travel distance of the target user is shorter than the reference value, the score value of the user is multiplied by a coefficient less than 1. The coefficient tis determined in accordance with a deviation from the reference value. A lower-skilled user tends to have a longer travel distance while a higher-skilled user tends to have a shorter travel distance. However, even the same-skilled users may have individual differences in travel distance. Therefore, the individual difference is reflected in the output of power consumption prediction model by correcting the score information given as a parameter to the power consumption prediction model with the stored travel distance information)
reconfigure the electrical energy storage packs based on an outcome of the modelling. (Okamoto, e.g., see rejection as applied above and to claim 1; see also paras. [0125]-[0126] disclosing the monitoring device (1) according to item (1) may further include a notification unit (114) configured to notify the mobile terminal device (6) held by a person in charge that an abnormality has occurred in the power storage pack (2) mounted on the electric vehicle (3) when an abnormality signal of the power storage pack (2) is acquired from the electric vehicle (3). This configuration enables the person in charge to go to the electric vehicle (3) and replace the power storage pack (2) and to collect the power storage pack (2) in which the abnormality has occurred).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng’s method with Okamoto’s determining which electrical energy storage packs to replace; determining a combination of replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs depending on the classified vehicle usage type and an associated minimum state of health; modelling a power distribution across the combination of replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs to determine load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration; reconfigure the electrical energy storage packs based on an outcome of the modelling for at least the reasons that utilizing a prediction model enhances the prediction accuracy of the amount of power consumption of the electric vehicle, as taught by Okamoto; e.g., see para. [0096].
Regarding claim 9, Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is performed as an on-board application of the vehicle. (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also para. [0094] disclosing the management/control system for a vehicle system such as an energy storage system may be distributed to computing/data resources on multiple systems on the vehicle (e.g., at the system/subsystem/component level)).
Regarding claim 10, Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng discloses: The method according to claim 1, comprising acquiring the driving pattern data through cloud connectivity of the vehicles. (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically with regard to paras. [0113]-[0116] disclosing the acquired drive pattern data; see also para. [0084] disclosing the vehicle (V) and network (N) may be configured to allow access to the vehicle and network from a user interface (UI) on the vehicle (see figs. 1A-1B) and/or from a user interface on other computing devices (C) such as a mobile device, (MD), home/office (H/O), service centers (SC), data centers (DC), etc. The computing system configured for use with the system may be of any suitable type for the vehicle or network. Data storage and interchange may be provided by any suitable method or devices, including but not limited to USB/USB-connected or other storage/devices, network-connected storage/devices, cloud-based systems/infrastructure, etc. (e.g., interchangeable storage and use of data shown schematically as data D in figs. 14 and 22)).
Regarding claim 11, Hyde discloses A system for determining an electrical energy storage pack replacement configuration of an electrical energy storage system of a vehicle comprising several electrical energy storage packs, the system comprising: (Hyde, e.g., see figs. 9a-9e illustrating the plurality of battery modules of a battery pack; see also figs. 11a-11d illustrating the plurality of battery packs as configured within a vehicle).
sensors for collecting driving pattern data indicative of the use pattern of the vehicle and for collecting electrical energy storage sensor data, and (Hyde, e.g., see fig. 14 illustrating data/information sets (D); see also Table C disclosing vehicle type and use; see also Table D disclosing a route/duty (event/trip/activity); See also Table F disclosing operator/driver identification and preferences; see also Table G disclosing Road conditions/traffic (at location/on route/at destination; see also Table H disclosing Date/time/season; see also para. [0091] disclosing the computing resource or device operating the management system may be located in the vehicle or operation may be divided/distributed among multiple computing/data resources at multiple locations on or accessible by the vehicle. The management system is located remote from the vehicle and has only intermittent data/network connectivity and communication with the vehicle; the vehicle comprises suitable data storage to store data (e.g., sensor data and other obtained data and acquired data) and operating parameters (e.g., rules/routines, instructions, etc.) during periods when data/network connectivity and communications to the management system operation is unreliable or not available; the vehicle system may be configured with dedicated data storage for data/operating parameters and programmed and/or may be configured to use data storage associated with one or more other vehicle systems to facilitate operation of the management system on the vehicle with continuity; see also para. [0186] disclosing as shown schematically in fig. 27B, where the vehicle is an electric or hybrid-electric vehicle and a vehicle system is an energy storage system in the form of a battery system comprising battery modules, the database may comprise data and information acquired and aggregated from individual components (e.g., data and data model for each battery module), component/module type, vehicle information (e.g., type, make, model, manufacturer, etc.) vehicle system and component information (e.g., type, configuration, etc.), route/duty information (e.g., recorded or tracked routes and activities as well as energy use, etc.), use/performance information (e.g., measured/acquired or calculated during operation), operating conditions information (e.g., acquired during operation from instrumentation, sensors, etc.), environmental condition information (e.g., weather, temperature, etc.) and other information available from data sources).
a control unit configured to: (Hyde, e.g., see para. [0111] disclosing the management system comprises a network-connected computing system configured to manage and direct operation of vehicle systems related to the energy storage system. See figs. 2A-2B, 3, 5, and 6. As indicated in figs. 4A-4C, 6, 7A-7B and 8, the management system provides and/or is connected to a controller or control system (including the interface system) for each vehicle system and for the energy storage system. The computer system is connected to data sources on the vehicle (e.g., providing data relating to the vehicle and vehicle systems) and to data sources external to the vehicle (e.g., providing data related to operation of the vehicle and vehicle systems).
acquire the vehicle driving pattern data, classify a vehicle usage type using a classification model and the vehicle driving pattern data; (Hyde, e.g., see fig. 14 illustrating data/information sets (D); see also Table C disclosing vehicle type and use; see also Table D disclosing a route/duty (event/trip/activity); See also Table F disclosing operator/driver identification and preferences; see also Table G disclosing Road conditions/traffic (at location/on route/at destination; see also Table H disclosing Date/time/season; see also para. [0102] disclosing data sources provide data relating to operating conditions for the vehicle in duty, such as duty or route of the vehicle, operator of the vehicle, type of vehicle, configuration of vehicle systems, operating conditions of the vehicle in the duty and environmental conditions of the vehicle in the duty. Operating conditions available from data sources (on the vehicle and external to the vehicle) will include at least one of temperature, weather, weather forecast, time of day, day of week, day of year, global positioning system (GPS) location data, traffic conditions at location, route information for the duty and available resources for vehicle system; see also paras. [0113]-[0116] disclosing as indicated in fig. 14, the data/information sets may comprise route/duty data (e.g., database containing items of data and information as listed in Table D), driver/operator data (e.g., database containing items of data and information as listed in Table F), vehicle data (e.g., database containing items of data and information as listed in Table C), vehicle systems and components data (e.g., database containing items of data and information as listed in Tables B and C), operating conditions data (e.g., database containing items of data information as listed in Tables G and H), environmental/other conditions data (e.g., database containing items of data and information as listed in Table I), resource/facility data (e.g., database containing items of information as listed in Table E); referring to figs. 14 and 16, a method of managing an energy storage system may comprise the steps of obtaining data relating to the vehicle in data categories from data sources, determining a route and duty; ; see also fig. 25 illustrating a flow chart, specifically to “determine vehicle and duty and conditions; see also para. [0174] disclosing in fig. 25; as indicated, the method uses data from data sources including battery module data and other data (see Figs. 14, 15A-15B and 23) and Tables A and B). The vehicle (e.g., vehicle type, vehicle system configuration, etc. see Table C) is determined; in addition to the anticipated duty of the vehicle (e.g., available resources, router, activities, duration, operator, etc., see Table D) as well as conditions of operation (e.g., time of day, weather, traffic, etc., see Tables E, F, G, H, and I) can be considered (among other considerations) in allocation and development of inventory of components such as battery modules for a battery system of a vehicle as indicated in figs. 11A-11E and 22-25).
determine, using a power requirement model, a minimum state of health required for vehicle usage according to the classified vehicle usage type; determine a state of health of each of the electrical energy storage packs of the vehicle using the electrical energy storage sensor data; (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also para. [0090] disclosing the computing system may be configured for the processor to operate an application program (e.g., routine or algorithm) that comprises the management system. The management system will be configured with a control routine or program to perform monitoring and data-based management operations (e.g., using algorithms, computation, look-up tables/data values, correlations, comparisons, etc.) for the vehicle system; see also para. [0127] disclosing as indicated in figs. 15A-15B and Table B, data and information provided by a data source and/or from a data model for an individual battery module (e.g., a single-cell or multi-cell module) includes an identification (e.g., serial number and manufacturer, manufacture date, service date, etc.) as to facilitate tracking, the type (e.g., cell configuration, chemistry, operating parameters and capability such as high-rate charge/discharge, high power, deep discharge, long cycle life, etc.), the condition of the module (e.g., classification of the module conditions, temperature, etc.), the capacity of the module (e.g., voltage and amount of stored energy available), state of charge (e.g., voltage and related parameters), state of health (e.g., age/aging factors, impedance, capacity variations, life cycle status, energy throughput, etc.), and operation history (e.g.., performance of module, discharge and charge data/life cycle data, maintenance and reconditioning, event history, other stored data, etc.; construed by the examiner as a power requirement model; see also para. [0176] disclosing in the management of the life-cycle of a battery module, operating parameters (such as categories of use) may be correlated to data as to the status/phase of life-cycle of the battery module. As indicated in figs. 24A-24B, a new battery module is indicated as A phase; a mid-life battery module is indicated as B phase; an end-of-life battery module is indicated as C phase. A battery module may be classified as in a phase based on evaluation of data such as age, time in service, charge-recharge cycles, energy throughput, service/maintenance records, use/event history, etc. as well as measurements of performance and condition (e.g., state of health, impedance, capacity, etc.); periodic reclassification of the battery module may occur during the life-cycle of an interchangeable reuseable component such as a battery module; see also para. [0179] disclosing referring to figs. 24A-24B, use under operating parameters in the A classification would be characterized by greater relative demand for performance and need of capability/reliability as would be expected from a battery module in the A phase of life-cycle; use under operating parameters in the B classification would be characterized by moderate relative demand for performance and need of capability/reliability as would be expected from a battery module in the B phase of life-cycle; use under operating parameters in the C classification would be characterized by moderate relative demand for performance and need of capability/reliability as would be expected from a battery module in the C phase of life-cycle. As the battery module advances along the life-cycle, the level of demand/intensity of the recommended operating parameters of use are able to be reduced; the cost and warranty of the battery module may also be reclassified (e.g., reduced) as the battery module advances along the life-cycle; examiner notes that a C phase of life-cycle is construed as an end-life-cycle and a minimum state of health, wherein all of A phase, B phase, and C phase are construed as a state of health of each of the electrical energy storage packs of the vehicle, as illustrated in fig. 23).
conclude to replace the electrical energy storage packs having a state of health at an end-of-life phase; (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also para. [0183] disclosing after the end-of-life phase, the battery module is expected to be recycled, the inventory management system can work to relocate battery modules for use in vehicles or in inventory at a location nearer recycling facilities at the end-of-life phase as to reduce the distance and cost of shipping to recycling facilities; see also fig. 26B illustrating a flow chart wherein the end result of monitoring the life cycles of the batteries is to recycle/reclaim).
Hyde is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing lower than the minimum state of health; and determine a load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs; and conclude an electrical energy storage pack replacement, determine a load sharing factor indicative of a load distribution between the electrical energy storage packs, compare the load sharing factor to a predetermined conditions; and depending on the outcome of comparing the load sharing factor to a predetermined condition, provide a suggested reconfiguration of the electrical energy storage pack to more equally distribute a load across the electrical energy storage packs.
However, Okamoto further discloses lower than the minimum state of health; and (Okamoto, e.g., see paras. [0033]-[0035] disclosing the SOH is defined as a ratio of current full charge capacity to initial full charge capacity. The SOH having a lower value (closer to 0%) indicates that degradation progresses more. The SOH may be obtained by measuring the capacity through full charging and discharging, or may be obtained by adding storage degradation and cycle degradation).
determine a load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs; and (Okamoto, e.g., see paras. [0091]-[0092] disclosing upon receiving the abnormality signal indicating the abnormality of battery pack (2), notification unit (114) of monitoring device (1) notifies mobile terminal device (6) held by the person in charge of the battery of a battery replacement instruction including the identification number and the position information on electric vehicle (3) in which the battery abnormality occurs. When receiving the instructions through mobile terminal device (6), the person in charge of the battery goes to electric vehicle (3) with spare battery pack (2), and replaces battery pack (2) in which the abnormality occurs with normal spare battery pack 92) brought by the person in charge; see also fig. 9 illustrating a subroutine as an example of processing for selecting a combination of battery packs in the flowchart of fig. 8; see also paras. [0067] – [0069] disclosing acquisition unit (111) acquires the amount of power consumption predicted by prediction unit (112) (step S171). Acquisition unit (111) acquires the SOC and the SOH of each of the battery packs (2) stored in battery pack storage device (4) (step S172). Control device (40) of battery pack storage device (4) or monitoring device (1) calculates the SOC and SOH of each battery pack (2). Selecting unit (113) calculates the current charge capacity [kWh] of each battery pack (2) based on the SOC, SOH, and initial capacity of each battery pack (2); construed as a load distribution. Selecting unit (113) derives all combinations of battery packs (2) in which an amount of electricity (hereinafter, referred to as necessary capacity) is larger than or equal to a value obtained by adding a predetermined margin to the predicted amount of power consumption (step S173)).
conclude an electrical energy storage pack replacement, determine a load sharing factor indicative of a load distribution between the electrical energy storage packs, (Okamoto, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with regard to fig. 9; see also figs. 10(a)-(10b) illustrating tables of specific examples of selection conditions under which a combination of battery packs (2) is selected. Figs. 10(a) and 10(b) illustrate the examples in which the necessarily capacity is 1.6 kWh. The initial capacity of battery pack 2 is 1 kWh; examiner notes that fig. 10(a) explicitly shows a load sharing capacity of 0.8 kWh for both batteries 0013 and 0009 to produce a total capacity of 1.6 kWh, and shows a load sharing capacity of 0.53 kWh for batteries 0007, 0011, and 0016 to produce a total capacity of 1.6 kWh; examiner further notes fig. 10(b) explicitly illustrates a load sharing capacity of 0.8 kWh for both batteries 0005 and 0002 to produce a total capacity of 1.6 kWh, and shows a load sharing capacity of 1.0 kWh and 0.6 kWh to produce a total capacity of 1.6 kWh; examiner further notes the difference of capacity and/or SOH is construed as the load sharing factor; see also paras. [0070]-[0079] disclosing in fig. 10(a), combination candidate “A” is a combination of battery packs of battery Nos. 0013 and 0009. The battery pack of battery No. 0013 has a current capacity of 0.8 kWh and an SOH of 90%. The battery pack of battery No. 0009 also has a current capacity of 0.8 kWh and an SOH of 90%. Both of the battery packs are charged with a capacity being lower than the full charge capacity. Combination candidate “B” is a combination of battery packs of battery Nos. 0007, 0011, and 0016. The battery pack of battery No. 0007 has a current capacity of 0.53 kWh and an SOH of 60%. The battery pack of battery No. 0011 has a current capacity of 0.53 Wh and an SOH of 60%. The battery pack of battery No. 0016 also has a current capacity of 0.53 Wh and an SOH of 60%. The three battery packs are charged with their capacities being lower than the full charge capacity. Combination candidate “A” is selected from candidates “A” and “B” because of the smaller number of parallel-connected power storage packs).
compare the load sharing factor to a predetermined conditions; and (Okamoto, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with regard to figs. 10(a)-10(b); see also paras. [0070] and [0075]-[0079] disclosing that figs. 10(a) and 10(b) are table of specific examples of selection conditions under which a combination of battery packs (2) is selected. Fig. 10(b) illustrates an example of the selection conditions under which the smaller the variations in degradation is, the higher the priority is. In fig. 10(b), combination candidate “A” is a combination of battery packs of battery Nos. 0005 and 0002. the battery pack of the battery No. 0005 has a current capacity of 0.8 kWh and an SOH of 80%. The battery pack of battery No. 0002 also has a current capacity of 0.8 kWh and an SOH of 80%. Both the battery packs are charged to the full charge capacity. Combination candidate “B” is a combination of battery packs of battery Nos. 0004 and 0008. The battery pack of battery No. 0004 has a current capacity of 1.0 kWh and an SOH of 100%. The battery pack of battery No. 0008 has a current capacity of 0.6 Wh and an SOH of 60%. Both the battery packs are charged to the full charge capacity; wherein the capacity and SOH, wherein the differences of capacity and/or SOH as cited above are construed as the load sharing factors, and wherein the capacity and/or SOH are compared to the “full charge capacity” which is construed as a predetermined condition).
depending on the outcome of comparing the load sharing factor to a predetermined condition, provide a suggested reconfiguration of the electrical energy storage pack to deter deterioration of the battery pack. (Okamoto, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with regard to fig. 10(b) and paras. [0070]-[0075]; see also paras. [0078]-[0079] disclosing combination candidate “A” is selected from candidates “A” and “B” because of a smaller variation in SOH. Various selection conditions are conceivable in addition to the selection conditions described as the specific examples in figs. 10(a) and 10(b). For example, the selection condition may be determined such that as the deterioration progresses, the priority is higher. In this case, a combination having the smallest total SOH is selected from the combination candidates)
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Hyde with Okamoto’s lower than the minimum state of health; and determine a load distribution between electrical energy storage packs after reconfiguration including replacement electrical energy storage packs and maintained electrical energy storage packs; and conclude an electrical energy storage pack replacement, determine a load sharing factor indicative of a load distribution between the electrical energy storage packs, compare the load sharing factor to a predetermined conditions; and depending on the outcome of comparing the load sharing factor to a predetermined condition, provide a suggested reconfiguration of the electrical energy storage pack to deter deterioration of the battery pack for at least the reasons that utilizing similarly characterized battery packs in a vehicular system ensures that contributions from the individual batteries avoid excessive discharge or thermal runaway, which will damage/destroy the battery system and the vehicle).
Hyde in view of Okamoto is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: more equally distribute a load across the electrical energy storage packs.
However, Zeng further discloses more equally distribute a load across the electrical energy storage packs. (Zeng, e.g., see para. [0041] disclosing the current output by each battery depends upon the internal discharging characteristics such as internal resistance of this battery, and is distributed in a certain proportion. Thus, the connection of each battery to the power supply system can be completely determined by the hardware circuit automatically, and the current load can be equally distributed between batteries automatically).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Hyde in view of Okamoto with Zeng’s more equally distribute the load across the electrical energy storage packs for at least the reasons that batteries that discharge early can be automatically isolated from other batteries, and thereby maximize battery capacity, as taught by Zeng; e.g., see paras. [0023]-[0024].
Regarding claim 12, Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng discloses: A vehicle comprising a system according to claim 11. (Hyde, e.g., see figs. 1a-1c, 2a-2b, 4b-4c, 11a-11d, 12a-12b, 21a-21b, 23, and 28 all illustrating a vehicle comprising a system according to claim 11; see also paras. [0070]-[0072] disclosing a vehicle (V) with a management system for vehicle systems including an energy storage system. The systems shown and disclosed may be of a type provided for any of a wide variety of vehicles including but not limited to electric vehicles and hybrid/hybrid-electric vehicles).
Regarding claim 14, Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng discloses: A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program code is run on a computer. (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also para. [0094] disclosing as shown schematically in fig. 7, the control/management system for a battery system may comprise a computing system (e.g., processor and etc.) with a control/management program or subroutines (e.g., such as in a computation/data model with algorithms and/or data tables) and data storage for the control/management system; see also fig. 5 illustrating a memory (RAM/ROM) and data storage; see also para. [0100] disclosing the management system will be provided with associated memory to store data and information needed for use and operation (e.g., an associated database in a data storage component/system such as a hard drive or solid state memory unit/SSD)).
Regarding claim 15, Hyde in view of Okamoto, in further view of Zeng discloses: A control unit for determining an electrical energy storage pack replacement configuration of an electrical energy storage pack of a vehicle comprising several electrical energy storage packs, the control unit being configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1. (Hyde, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also fig. 6 illustrating controller (control/management system) (MS); see also para. [0094] disclosing as shown schematically in figs. 2A-2B, 6 and 7A-7C, according to an exemplary embodiment, the management/control system for a vehicle system such as an energy storage system (shown as a battery system) may be distributed to computing/data resources on multiple systems on the vehicle (e.g., at a system/subsystem/component level) or may be centralized (e.g., operated at a central control/management system for a vehicle. As shown schematically in fig. 7, the control/management system for a battery system may comprise a computing system (e.g., processor and etc.) with a control/management program or subroutines (e.g., such as in a computation/data model with algorithms and/or data tables) and data storage for the control/management system; examiner notes the control/management system is construed as a control unit).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2005/0040789 A1 to Salasoo et al. relates to vehicle energy storage system control methods and method for determining battery cycle life projection for heavy duty hybrid vehicle applications.
US 2017/0240064 A1 to Lee relates to a virtual assessment of battery state of health in electrified vehicles.
US 2022/0059886 A1 to Gréber relates to a vehicle electric battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 5712700349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857