DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 2013 March 16, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed on the mailing date of 2023 November 13. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.+
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A title that states the inventive concept of this particular Electrified Vehicle and Control Method for the Same, which distinguishes it from other Electrified Vehicles and Control Methods for the Same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 15 is/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.
Claims 7’s, 15’s conditional scenarios — the charging current allocation value for the first battery is equal to or less than the charging limit current value for the first battery and the charging current allocation value for the second battery exceeds the charging limit current value for the second battery — are the logical inverse, and thus contradicts, their respective parent claims (Claim 6, 14) required condition.
Claim 9 recites “operatively connected to the power conversion device” at the end of the third step. This is a grammatically dangling phrase with no ascertainable referent in the method claim context.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 8 – 13, 16 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERIKSSON (US 2019/0283625 A1), and further in view of MATSUMOTO (US 2006/0152196 A1) and HAGIMOTO (US 2019/0319315 A1).
In re claims 1, ERIKSSON discloses an electrified vehicle (FIG. 2; vehicle 30 comprising electrical system 1) comprising:
a first battery (first high voltage battery 3) and a second battery (second high voltage battery 4):
a power conversion device electrically connected between the first battery and the second battery (FIG. 1; ¶[0022]: bi-directional DC/DC-converter 5 connected in parallel with both the first high voltage battery 3 and the second high voltage battery 4); and
a controller operatively connected to the power conversion device (¶[0028]: ECU 18 controls and monitors the charging of the high voltage battery unit) and configured to:
determine charging current command values for the first battery and the second battery from a value of an external charging current based on state of charge (SOC) values of the first battery and second battery (¶[0025]: SOC values of first high voltage battery 3 and second high voltage battery 4 used to control DC/DC-converter 5 to balance charge current), and
control the power conversion device to allocate the external charging current to the first battery and the second battery according to the charging current command values (¶[0041]: method comprises controlling bi-directional DC/DC-converter 5 to balance SOC of first high voltage battery 3 and second high voltage battery 4 for received charging voltage).
ERIKSSON does not expressly disclose a controller configured to: determine charging current command values for the first battery and the second battery from a value of an external charging current based on charging limit currents for the first battery and the second battery and a charging current allocation ratio determined by SOC values of the first battery and second battery.
MATSUMOTO teaches
determining charging limit currents (¶[0027]: battery charging current limit values determined by SOC).
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to incorporate MATSUMOTO's charging current limit values into ERIKSSON charging allocation system to reduce maximum charging current, thereby improving battery safety and reducing degradation.
MATSUMOTO is silent to a controller configured to: determine charging current command values for the first battery and the second battery from a value of an external charging current based on a charging current allocation ratio determined by SOC values of the first battery and second battery.
HAGIMOTO teaches
a charging current allocation ratio determined by SOC values of the first battery and second battery (¶[0027 - 0028]: distribution ratio β determined from remaining capacity ratio α of first battery B1 and second battery B2).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to include HAGIMOTO's distribution ratio into ERIKSSON's charging system to balance battery states of charge and optimize charging time.
In re claims 2, 10 ERIKSSON is silent to wherein the controller is further configured to determine a remaining charge capacity of the first battery based on the SOC value of the first battery, determine a remaining charge capacity of the second battery based on the SOC value of the second battery, and set a ratio of the remaining charge capacities of the first battery and the second battery to be the charging current allocation ratio.
HAGIMOTO teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a remaining charge capacity of the first battery based on the SOC value of the first battery, determine a remaining charge capacity of the second battery based on the SOC value of the second battery, and set a ratio of the remaining charge capacities of the first battery and the second battery to be the charging current allocation ratio (¶s [0026, 0028]: ECU 40 calculates remaining capacity of first battery B1 and second battery B2; sets distribution ratio based on remaining capacity ratio α).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to include HAGIMOTO's distribution ratio into ERIKSSON's charging system to balance battery states of charge and optimize charging time.
In re claim 3, 11, ERIKSSON is silent to wherein the controller is further configured to allocate a value of the external charging current according to the charging current allocation ratio to determine charging current allocation values for the first battery and the second battery and compare the charging current allocation value and the charging limit current values to set the charging current command values based on a result of the comparing.
MATSUMOTO teaches comparing first and second charging current limit value candidates to select the smaller value as the charging current limit value based on a result of the comparing (¶[0047]: method compares first and second limit value candidates and selects smaller current value as charging current limit value)
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate MATSUMOTO's charging current limit values into ERIKSSON charging allocation system to reduce maximum charging current, thereby improving battery safety and reducing degradation.
MATSUMOTO is silent to the controller is further configured to allocate a value of the external charging current according to the charging current allocation ratio to determine charging current allocation values for the first battery and the second battery.
HAGIMOTO teaches wherein the controller is further configured to allocate a value of the external charging current according to the charging current allocation ratio to determine charging current allocation values for the first battery and the second battery (¶[0029]: ECU 40 distributes electric power per distribution ratio β to first battery B1 and second battery B2).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to include HAGIMOTO's distribution ratio into ERIKSSON's charging system to balance battery states of charge and optimize charging time.
In re claims 4, 12, ERIKSSON is silent to wherein in response that the charging current allocation value for the first battery is equal to or less than the charging limit current value for the first battery and the charging current allocation value for the second battery is equal to or less than the charging limit current value for the second battery, the controller is further configured to set the charging current allocation value for the first battery to be the charging current command value for the first battery and set the charging current allocation value for the second battery to be the charging current command value for the second battery.
MATSUMOTO teaches setting the charging current as the charging current command value in response that the charging current is equal to or less than a charging current limit value (¶s [0027, 0050]: allocation values used as command values when within charging current limit).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate MATSUMOTO's charging current limit values into ERIKSSON's charging allocation system, and to apply MATSUMOTO's per-battery principle to ERIKSSON's first and second batteries, to improve battery safety.
In re claims 5, 13, ERIKSSON is silent to wherein in response that the charging current allocation value for the first battery exceeds the charging limit current value for the first battery and the charging current allocation value for the second battery exceeds the charging limit current value for the second battery, the controller is further configured to set the charging limit current value for the first battery to be the charging current command value for the first battery and set the charging limit current value for the second battery to be the charging current command value for the second battery.
MATSUMOTO teaches setting the charging current limit value as the charging current command value in response that a charging current exceeds a charging current limit value (¶s [0027, 0050]: limit current values cap command values when allocation exceeds limit).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate MATSUMOTO's charging current limit values into ERIKSSON's charging allocation system, and to apply MATSUMOTO's per-battery principle to ERIKSSON's first and second batteries, to improve battery safety.
In re claims 8, 16, ERIKSSON discloses wherein the controller is further configured to redetermine the charging current command value in response that the SOCs changes (¶[0025]: SOC of first high voltage battery 3 and second high voltage battery 4 continuously monitored; SOC change triggers updated command value of DC/DC-converter 5).
In re claims 9, 17, ERIKSSON discloses a method of controlling an electrified vehicle (¶[0040]: methods of controlling electrical system 1 of vehicle), the method comprising:
determining, by a controller, a charging current allocation ratio determined by SOC values of a first battery and a second battery:
determining, by the controller, charging current command values for the first battery and the second battery from a value of an external charging current based on SOC values of the first battery and the second battery (¶[0025]: SOC values of first high voltage battery 3 and second high voltage battery 4 used to control DC/DC-converter 5 to balance charge current); and
controlling, by the controller, a power conversion device connected between the first battery and the second battery operatively connected to the power conversion device, to allocate the external charging current to the first battery and the second battery to balance a state of charge of the first battery and the second battery (¶[0041]: method comprises controlling bi-directional DC/DC-converter 5 to balance SOC of first high voltage battery 3 and second high voltage battery 4 for received charging voltage).
As to claim 17, ERIKSSON discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which a program for executing a method of controlling an electrified vehicle by a processor is recorded (¶[0029]: processor of ECU 18 with computer executable code for controlling operation of programmable device)
ERIKSSON is silent to determining, by a controller, a charging current allocation ratio determined by SOC values of a first battery and a second battery; charging limit currents for the first and second batteries.
MATSUMOTO teaches
charging limit currents determined by state of charge values of a battery (¶[0027]: battery charging current limit values determined by SOC; set maximum currents allowed for charging).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate MATSUMOTO's charging current limit values into ERIKSSON charging allocation system to reduce maximum charging current, thereby improving battery safety and reducing degradation.
MATSUMOTO is silent to determining, by a controller, a charging current allocation ratio determined by SOC values of a first battery and a second battery.
HAGIMOTO teaches
determining, by a controller, a charging current allocation ratio determined by a ratio of remaining charge capacities of a first battery and a second battery (¶[0027 - 0028]: distribution ratio β determined from remaining capacity ratio α of first battery B1 and second battery B2).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to include HAGIMOTO's distribution ratio into ERIKSSON's charging system to balance battery states of charge and optimize charging time.
Claim(s) 6 – 7, 14 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERIKSSON (US 2019/0283625 A1), MATSUMOTO (US 2006/0152196 A1), HAGIMOTO (US 2019/0319315 A1), and further in view of IWATA (US 2006/0055367 A1).
In re claims 6, 14, ERIKSSON is silent to wherein in response that the charging current allocation value for the first battery exceeds the charging limit current value for the first battery and the charging current allocation value for the second battery is equal to or less than the charging limit current value for the second battery, the controller is further configured to set the charging limit current value for the first battery to be the charging current command value for the first battery and set a smaller value between the charging limit current value for the second battery and a sum of the charging current allocation value for the second battery and a remaining current allocation value for the first battery to be the charging current command value for the second battery, and wherein the remaining current allocation value for the first battery corresponds to a difference between the charging current allocation value and the charging limit current value for the first battery.
MATSUMOTO teaches
wherein in response that a charging current allocation value exceeds a charging current limit value, set the charging current limit value to be the charging current command value (¶s [0027, 0050]: first battery capped at charging limit current value when allocation exceeds limit), and
wherein the remaining current allocation value corresponds to a difference between the charging current allocation value and the charging limit current value for the first battery (¶[0027]: remaining current is equivalent to excess of charging current allocation above charging current limit value).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate MATSUMOTO's charging current limit values into ERIKSSON's charging allocation system to improve battery safety.
MATSUMOTO is silent to setting a smaller value between the charging limit current value for the second battery and a sum of the charging current allocation value for the second battery and a remaining current allocation value for the first battery to be the charging current command value for the second battery.
IWATA teaches
redistributing the remaining charging current from the first battery group to the second battery group to set the charging current command value for the second battery group (¶[0070]: bidirectional DC/DC converter 30 for bidirectional electric power migration between battery group 1 and battery group 2).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to redistribute excess charging current between batteries, as taught by IWATA, to improve total charging efficiency. Setting the second battery's command to the lesser of its limit and its allocation plus the first battery's remaining current is the inherent engineering implementation of IWATA's bidirectional power migration principle, ensuring neither the second battery's limit nor the available total current is exceeded.
In re claim 7, 15, ERIKSSON is silent to wherein in response that the charging current allocation value for the first battery is equal to or less than the charging limit current value for the first battery and the charging current allocation value for the second battery exceeds the charging limit current value for the second battery, the controller is further configured to set the charging limit current value for the second battery to be the charging current command value for the second battery and set a smaller value between the charging limit current value for the first battery and a sum of the charging current allocation value for the first battery and a remaining current allocation value for the second battery to be the charging current command value for the first battery, and wherein the remaining current allocation value for the second battery corresponds to a difference between the charging current allocation value and the charging limit current value for the second battery.
MATSUMOTO teaches
wherein in response that a charging current allocation value exceeds a charging current limit value, set the charging current limit value to be the charging current command value (¶s [0027, 0050]: second battery capped at charging limit current value when allocation exceeds limit), and
wherein the remaining current allocation value for the second battery corresponds to a difference between the charging current allocation value and the charging limit current value for the second battery (¶[0027]: remaining current is equivalent to excess of charging current allocation above charging current limit value).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate MATSUMOTO's charging current limit values into ERIKSSON's charging allocation system to improve battery safety.
MATSUMOTO is silent to setting a smaller value between the charging limit current value for the first battery and a sum of the charging current allocation value for the first battery and a remaining current allocation value for the second battery to be the charging current command value for the first battery.
IWATA teaches
redistributing the remaining charging current from the second battery group to the first battery group to set the charging current command value for the first battery group (¶[0070]: bidirectional DC/DC converter 30 for bidirectional electric power migration between battery group 1 and battery group 2).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to redistribute excess charging current between batteries, as taught by IWATA, to improve total charging efficiency. Setting the first battery's command to the lesser of its limit and its allocation plus the second battery's remaining current is the inherent engineering implementation of IWATA's bidirectional power migration principle, ensuring neither the first battery's limit nor the available total current is exceeded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 17:00.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. 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.
/D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights