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 § 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.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 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 1 and 11 recite “peaks” which are known and defined as the highest values of the output power. Claim 6 appears to attempt to then redefine the peaks to be the lowest values while also stating that the values are still “greater than or equal to a threshold value”. This creates a contradiction and leads to a lack of clarity in the claims. Because a dependent claim must further limit an independent claim from which it depends, claim 6 creates a logical conflict that renders the metes and bounds of the invention unclear. Claims 7 and 8 depending from claim 6 are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 16-18 are rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
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 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assaliyski et al. US 20230124573 (hereinafter Assa) in view of Park et al. US 20230009818.
With regards to claims 1, 11, and 12 Assa discloses, an apparatus for controlling a battery system of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a battery [fig 1 energy store 12] mounted on the vehicle [vehicle 10];
loads electrically connected to the battery [loads 20 and 22]; and
a processor [controllers 30] configured to:
Assa fails to disclose, determine a peak at which an instantaneous output of the battery exceeds a preset reference range, determine a target load among the loads electrically connected to the battery, and enter a peak reduction control period for reducing the peak to control power consumption of the target load.
However, Park discloses, determine a peak at which an instantaneous output of the battery exceeds a preset reference range [fig 3 discloses peak output and reference ranges],
determine a target load among the loads electrically connected to the battery, and enter a peak reduction control period for reducing the peak to control power consumption of the target load [abstract and ¶15].
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 high voltage power system of Assa with the power shedding system of Park to monitor power spikes and reduce power consumption via vehicle loads to prevent system damage from excess power draw.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 2 the combination discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the battery is a high voltage battery and loads connected to the battery are high voltage loads [Assa energy store 12 and loads 20/22 are high voltage].
With regards to claims 3 and 13 the combination discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the instantaneous output enters the peak based on a determination that an instantaneous output change of the battery is greater than or equal to a threshold value during a preset unit time from a reference time point at which the instantaneous output of the battery exceeds a preset first reference output [Park fig 3 discloses the peak value being equal to or greater than a first reference threshold over time].
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claims 4 and 14 the combination discloses, the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to control the power consumption of the target load by driving the target load to consume less power than power consumed by a user input [Park fig 3 loads are shed to reduce power consumption and fig 4 step 435-440].
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claims 5 and 15 the combination discloses, the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to drive the target load to consume power greater than the power consumed by the user input after controlling the power consumption of the target load [Park fig 4 step 445 load trigger event addressed/complete back to step 425 where power is supplied again].
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claims 6 and 16 the combination discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the instantaneous output enters the peak based on a determination that the instantaneous output change of the battery is greater than or equal to a threshold value during a preset unit time from a reference time point at which the instantaneous output of the battery is less than a preset second reference output [Park fig 3 discloses the peak value being equal to or greater than a first reference threshold over time where the reference reasonably reads that when the system is not in the overpower/excess/equal condition it is in the underpower/deficit condition as claimed].
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assaliyski et al. US 20230124573 (hereinafter Assa) in view of Park et al. US 20230009818 further in view of Ikawa et al. US RE39908 (hereinafter Ika).
With regards to claims 7 and 17 the combination fails to explicitly disclose, the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to control the power consumption of the target load by driving the target load to consume greater power than power consumed by a user input.
However, Ika discloses, wherein the processor is configured to control the power consumption of the target load by driving the target load to consume greater power than power consumed by a user input [col 7 lines 24-33 disclosing that excess power from the battery is routed to the loads].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the battery systems of Assa in view of Park with Ika to provide the excess power to a load in order to better maintain the health of the battery.
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claims 8 and 18 the combination discloses, the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to drive the target load to consume power less than the power consumed by the user input after controlling the power consumption of the target load [Park fig 4 reasonably discloses that once the power state is altered the system returns to the normal power consumption state].
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 8 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assaliyski et al. US 20230124573 (hereinafter Assa) in view of Park et al. US 20230009818 further in view of Schumacher et al. US 20200086712 (hereinafter Schu).
With regards to claims 9 and 19 the combination fails to disclose, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: accumulate timing at which a peak control period for controlling power consumption of the target load proceeds, and drive the target load based on a user input based on a determination that the accumulated peak control period is greater than or equal to a preset threshold period.
However, Schu discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
accumulate timing at which a peak control period for controlling power consumption of the target load proceeds [fig 6 step 620 operate and start timer], and
drive the target load based on a user input based on a determination that the accumulated peak control period is greater than or equal to a preset threshold period [fig 6 step 625, once the timer from step 620 expires power is resumed in step 625].
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 power control systems of Assa in view of Park with Schu to ensure proper temperature control of the user space to improve the user experience and to prevent over/under temperature conditions.
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claims 10 and 20 the combination discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: determine an air conditioning system of the vehicle as the target load [Park ¶34 discloses the loads being HVAC modules and Schu climate control load 212]; and
drive the target load based on a user input based on a determination that a change in an indoor temperature of the vehicle according to control of power consumption of the air conditioning system is equal to or greater than a preset threshold temperature [Schu discloses an air conditioning system as the target vehicle load and figs 5-6 disclose the operation of the load shedding, hitting a temperature threshold, starting a timer and then restarting the air conditioning in order to allow the return of the user set air conditions].
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 10 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