DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggs et al, ES 2939109, in view of Rahm et al, US Pub. 2023/0126729.
Boggs et al disclose a method and system for the maintenance of high voltage battery packs comprising: at least one requestor system configured to generate a request to burn energy stored in at least one battery pack of the vehicle (battery service unit 106 includes preselected scenarios (e.g., storage, ground transportation, air transportation, recycling, emergency dump, and the like), each with a predetermined associated EDC level). An operator choosing one of the preselected scenarios causes the battery service unit 106 to automatically charge/discharge the battery pack 104 to the predetermined EDC level associated with the selected scenario); at least one dissipator system configured to burn energy stored in the at least one battery pack (battery pack 104); and an EDAM module configured to receive the request, determine a status of the at least one requestor system, and based on the request and the status of the at least one requestor system, signal the at least one dissipator system to burn energy stored in the at least one battery pack (once a scenario is selected, the system very the current status of the battery pack in order to provide the appropriate energy amount). (See Fig. 4 and its description in the specification).
Boggs et al fail to disclose an architecture in terms of requestor system generating a request to burn stored battery energy, follow by an EDAM module determining requestor status and commanding another system to burn the requested battery, wherein the at least one requestor system comprises at least one of a brake system, a heating verification, ventilation and air-conditioning system, a motor control-system, and a fuel system, which is configured to generate the request.
Rahm et al disclose a braking system for vehicles comprising: a generative-braking control architecture in which a controller receives a generative request, determines generative electrical power, determines the battery present charging capacity, compares charging capacity, determines excess power, operate another electrical machine/load to consume electrical energy (Figs. 2-3; par. 0049-0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Boggs et al according to Rahm so that energy-dissipation is responsive to a request from a regenerative-braking/requestor system and the status/capacity associated with the system and the battery in order to maintain regenerative braking when the battery has insufficient charging capacity, thereby reducing reliance on friction braking , and improving vehicle energy-management capability. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the burning of energy is defined as the dissipating of energy by the at least one dissipator system to reduce an amount of energy stored in the at least one battery pack to increase an amount of available storage in the at least one battery pack for energy generated by the at least one requestor system (the charging station transfer power to the battery pack 104 when charging, see fig. 1). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the burning of energy is defined as the dissipating of energy from the at least one battery pack via the at least one dissipator system to increase available energy storage of the at least one battery pack and not to perform another vehicle operation via the at least one dissipator system (the charging station transfer power to the battery pack 104 when charging, see fig. 1). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 4, wherein: the at least one requestor system comprises at least one of a brake system and a motor control system; and the EDAM module configured to determine a status of at least one of the brake system and the motor control system, and based on the status of the at least one of the brake system and the motor control system, signal the at least one dissipator system to burn energy stored in the at least one battery pack (the requestor system is an electric vehicle have a brake system and a motor control system and having a controller the status of each component of the vehicle to provide the appropriate signals for burning energy into the battery pack, figs. 1-6). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the EDAM module is configured to operate in an auto energy burn mode or a manual energy burn mode (Battery service unit can automatically set a desire EDC or an operator may choose one preselect scenario, fig. 4). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the EDAM module is configured to determine whether an override signal has been received, and in response to receiving the override signal, cease operating in an energy burn mode (remote signals can be sent to the battery interface to charge or discharge the battery, figs. 4-5). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the EDAM module is configured to: determine an amount of energy to dissipate to prevent overheating of a component of the at least one requestor system; based on the determined amount of energy to dissipate, predict whether the component will overheat; and in response to determining that the component is expected to overheat, performing a countermeasure to prevent the component from overheating (the controller can predict the amount of energy to burn in order to prevent damage and have the characteristics of the battery pack to burn the appropriate energy level, figs, 1, 3-5). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim, wherein the EDAM module is configured to determine the status of the at least one requestor system based on a thermal model, and enable operation in an energy burn mode in response to the status (the controller verifies the current status of the of the battery pack in order to provide the appropriate energy amount). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 9, further comprising an arbitration module, wherein: the EDAM module is configured to determine an amount of energy to burn; the at least one dissipator system comprises a plurality of dissipator systems; each of the plurality of dissipator systems generating an energy dissipation capacity signal indicating an amount of energy the corresponding dissipator system is capable of burning; and the arbitration module is configured, based on the amount of energy to burn and the energy dissipation capacity signals, determine how much energy each of the plurality of dissipator systems is to burn and control each of the plurality of dissipator systems to burn that determined amount of energy (these are consider basic functions of the system to analyze and verify the amount of energy available in order to burn the appropriate energy level, the controller can verify the system before energy is burnt, figs. 1, 3-5). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 10, further comprising an arbitration module, wherein: the EDAM module is configured to determine an amount of energy to burn; the at least one dissipator system comprises a plurality of dissipator systems; each of the plurality of dissipator systems generating an energy dissipation capacity signal indicating an amount of energy the corresponding dissipator system is capable of burning; and the arbitration module is configured, based on the amount of energy to burn and the energy dissipation capacity signals, determine how much energy each of the plurality of dissipator systems is to burn and instruct each of the plurality of dissipator systems to burn that amount of energy (these are consider basic functions of the system to analyze and verify the amount of energy available in order to burn the appropriate energy level, the controller can verify the system before energy is burnt, figs. 1, 3-5). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 11, further comprising a translation module, wherein: the at least one dissipator system comprises a plurality of dissipator systems; the EDAM module is configured to generate a command signal according to a first protocol format and indicative of an amount of energy to burn; and the translation module is configured to translate the command signal into a plurality of commands respectively for the plurality of dissipator systems, the plurality of commands being in a plurality of different protocol formats acceptable by the plurality of dissipator systems (multiple scenarios are available and each one has a specific protocol for charging and discharging the battery pack). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, wherein: the at least one dissipator system comprises a plurality of dissipator systems; and the EDAM module is configured to account for interactions between the plurality of dissipator systems, and based on the interactions, determine amounts of energy to be burned by the plurality of dissipator systems, and directly or indirectly signal the plurality of dissipator systems to burn the determined amounts of energy (an operator can interface with the system to select the appropriate EDC level or the battery service unit can automatically can select the appropriate level). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the EDAM module is configured to perform an iterative calculation to obtain the energy requested to burn (the controller can determine the amount of energy to burn based on the request, figs. 1, 3-5). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the EDAM module is configured to apply a hysteresis condition to prevent frequent switching in and out of an energy burning mode (the system can analyze the system historical performance in order to determine a constant flow of energy, the controller can perform that function). Boggs et al as modified by Rahm et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 15-19, the method steps of performing the functions of the claims are met in the rejection of claims 1-14 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a method of operating an energy dissipation activation management system for vehicle which includes generating a command signal according to a first protocol format and indicative of an amount of energy to burn; translating the command signal into a plurality of commands respectively for a plurality of dissipator systems, the plurality of commands being in a plurality of different protocol formats acceptable by the plurality of dissipator systems, wherein the at least one dissipator system comprises the plurality of dissipator systems; accounting for interactions between the plurality of dissipator systems; and based on the interactions, determining amounts of energy to be burned by the plurality of dissipator systems, and directly or indirectly signaling the plurality of dissipator systems to burn the determined amounts of energy. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 15, specially wherein an architecture in terms of requestor system generating a request to burn stored battery energy, follow by an EDAM module determining requestor status and commanding another system to burn the requested battery, wherein the at least one requestor system comprises at least one of a brake system, a heating verification, ventilation and air-conditioning system, a motor control-system, and a fuel system, which is configured to generate the request, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The new prior art, Rahm et al disclose a braking system for vehicles comprising: a generative-braking control architecture in which a controller receives a generative request, determines generative electrical power, determines the battery present charging capacity, compares charging capacity, determines excess power, operate another electrical machine/load to consume electrical energy (Figs. 2-3; par. 0049-0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Boggs et al according to Rahm so that energy-dissipation is responsive to a request from a regenerative-braking/requestor system and the status/capacity associated with the system and the battery in order to maintain regenerative braking when the battery has insufficient charging capacity, thereby reducing reliance on friction braking , and improving vehicle energy-management capability. Boggs et as modified by Rahm et al render claims 1-19 obvious. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment and argument.
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. Raman, US Pub. 2013/0099561, discloses a method and a system for utilization of regenerative breaking electrical energy for operating auxiliary system in a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights