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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iida et al. US 20100324765.
With regards to claim 1 Iida discloses, a battery temperature adjustment device comprising: batteries [fig 1 batteries B0-Bn] configured to supply power to one or more motors [fig 1 MG1 and MG2] of a vehicle [vehicle 1] and are different from each other in temperature characteristics [each of the battery units within the battery pack B can have different temperature characteristics based on the physical layout, for example, some of the battery units may be next to a heat generating element or the batteries may be older and have less heat tolerance, while other units are further away from the heat and/or are newer and would thus have different temperature characteristics]; and
a controller [control device 14] configured to adjust temperature of one or more of the batteries determined from the batteries depending on a predetermined condition [¶1 “a temperature control method of the power storage device”].
With regards to claim 2 Iida discloses, the battery temperature adjustment device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to adjust temperature of the one or more batteries that are determined depending on a travel mode of the vehicle [¶64 “If the predicted battery temperature is too high, the travel mode for each section is reviewed, or control is performed such that a battery temperature control device (for example, a cooling device such as a cooling fan/air conditioner 45 or a heating device such as a heater 46) is operated”].
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. US 20100324765 in view of Wang et al. CN 109888439.
With regards to claim 3 Iida fails to disclose, the battery temperature adjustment device according to claim 2, wherein the travel mode includes a short distance mode for traveling a distance that is shorter than a first distance, and a medium distance mode for traveling a distance that is equal to or longer than the first distance and equal to or shorter than a second distance.
However, Wang discloses, wherein the travel mode includes a short distance mode for traveling a distance that is shorter than a first distance, and a medium distance mode for traveling a distance that is equal to or longer than the first distance and equal to or shorter than a second distance [¶67 “The thermal management parameter corresponding to the long mileage mode is a first thermal management parameter that enables the power battery to be in the best working state, and the thermal management parameter corresponding to the short mileage mode is a second thermal management parameter whose difference from the current battery parameter of the power battery is less than a preset difference threshold”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery systems of Iida with Wang to manage the heating/cooling of the batteries based on the distance in order to improve battery life, health, and enable the batteries to be in the best working state based on the drive/distance mode.
With regards to claim 4 the combination disclose, the battery temperature adjustment device according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to adjust temperature of the one or more batteries that have a low operation temperature range under the short distance mode, and adjust temperature of the one or more batteries that have a high operation temperature range under the medium distance mode [Iida reasonably discloses the battery(ies) having different temperature ranges as mentioned above in claim 1 and Wang ¶10 “The above solution allows for the adjustment of thermal management parameters based on the vehicle's actual mileage under the thermal management parameters. This enables thermal management control of the vehicle's power battery, allowing for automatic adjustment of thermal management parameters and adapting the thermal management control to different environments” which reasonably reads on the temperature of the battery(ies) being adjusted based on the distance].
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. US 20100324765 in view of Lowrie WO 2018090853.
With regards to claims 5 and 6 Iida fails to disclose, the battery temperature adjustment device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more motors comprises a first motor and a second motor different from the first motor, the batteries comprise a first battery and a second battery different from the first battery, and the first battery supply power to the first motor, and the second battery supply power to the second motor.
However, Lowrie discloses, wherein the one or more motors comprises a first motor and a second motor different from the first motor [fig 1 motors 17a/b and 18a/b],
the batteries comprise a first battery and a second battery different from the first battery, and
the first battery supply power to the first motor, and the second battery supply power to the second motor [battery 15 which supplies power to the first motor 17a/b and battery 16 which supplies power to the second motor 18a/b].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle battery systems of Iida and Lowrie to utilize separate battery/motor groups in order to improve power delivery and provide redundancy.
Claim 6 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights