DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 3, 8, 11, 16-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “constant” in claims 3, 11 is used by the claim to mean “a value that changes based on another parameter,” while the accepted meaning is “a fixed value that does not change.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 8, 16, 17 recite the limitation “an equilibrium time for active material of each of the battery cells to equally distribute across an electrode of the battery cell”. It is not clear what the claim is claiming. The originally filed disclosure does not provide any detail as to what is meant by the phrase except to repeat the same phrase. The Examiner is unable to determine the scope of the claim. The claim is indefinite.
Claims 18-20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 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, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. [US 20150306971] in view of Lee [US 20160059727].
As to claim 1. Lee discloses An electrified vehicle (EV) comprising:
a battery pack, [figs. 1, 2, 0021] battery 24, including a plurality of battery cells, [fig. 2, 0021] battery cells 72, and operable to provide at least a portion of propulsion power of the EV, [0016] provide energy for propulsion;
one or more sensors, [fig. 2, 0021] voltage sensors 80; and
a vehicle controller, [fig. 2, 0021] controllers including Battery Energy Control Module (BECM) 76, configured to operate the battery pack, [fig. 6, 0048] the controller operates the battery 24 according to the estimated values, according to power limits defined at activation of the EV, [0048] the controller operates the battery according to estimated values of OCV, [0031] including max and min limits for the OCV Voc, [0046] performed after startup, by an estimated open circuit voltage (OCV), [0029, 0032] the controller estimates the OCV Voc, for each of the battery cells, [0022, 0024] voltage measurement and estimation for each cell, that is based on voltages measured by the one or more sensors after a last deactivation of the EV, [0029] OCV calculated based on measured voltage, when no current 114 is flowing from the battery, [0025] OCV reading after the battery has been resting for a predetermined amount of time, and a decay parameter that is a function of the voltages and a duration since the last deactivation, [0029] the second parameter in equation (5) including V2,0.
Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operating of the battery is to charge and discharge the battery.
Chang teaches a method to adjust battery parameters based on battery power capability comprising a battery 24 with a plurality of cells 72, and a voltage sensor 80, [figs. 1, 2, 0019], and a controller 76, [fig. 2, 0019]; wherein the controller determines the open circuit voltage Voc and determine the battery power capability based on the Voc, including maximum power provided to the battery, i.e. charging, and power that can be provided by the battery, i.e. discharging, [0021, 0044]; wherein the controller charges and discharges the battery, [0030, 0046] based on the battery power capability, [0021, 0044].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee with that of Chang so that the system can maximize the lifetime of the battery.
As to claim 2. Lee discloses The EV of claim 1, wherein the decay parameter includes a coefficient that is a function of the voltages, [0032] V2,0 is a function of charge polarization voltage.
As to claim 4. Lee discloses The EV of claim 1, wherein the decay parameter has a non-linear correlation with the voltages, [0031, 0032].
As to claim 5. Lee discloses The EV of claim 1, wherein the decay parameter includes an exponential parameter involving a square root of the duration, [0029] equation 5.
As to claim 6. Lee discloses The EV of claim 1, wherein the vehicle controller is configured to detect the decay parameter using a non-linear regression model, [0031] Voc determined using non-linear regression method.
As to claim 7. Lee discloses The EV of claim 1, wherein the vehicle controller is configured to estimate an initial state of charge of the battery pack based on the estimated OCV, [0034], wherein the power limits are defined, in part, by the initial state of charge, [0048].
As to claim 9. Lee discloses A method of controlling an electrified vehicle (EV) having a battery pack including a plurality of battery cells, comprising:
responsive to a deactivation request, opening one or more contactors to electrically decouple the battery pack from a charge-discharge system of the EV, [fig. 1, 0015] contactors 42 connect and disconnect the battery 24;
responsive to an activation,
closing the one or more contactors to electrically couple the battery pack to the charge-discharge system, [fig. 1, 0015] contactors 42 connect and disconnect the battery 24, and
operating the battery pack according to power limits, [fig. 6, 0048] the controller operates the battery 24 according to the estimated values, defined at the activation of the EV, [0046] performed after startup, by an estimated open circuit voltage (OCV), [0029, 0032] the controller estimates the OCV Voc, for each of the battery cells, [0022, 0024] voltage measurement and estimation for each cell, that is based on voltages measured by the one or more sensors after a last deactivation of the EV, [0029] OCV calculated based on measured voltage, when no current 114 is flowing from the battery, [0025] OCV reading after the battery has been resting for a predetermined amount of time, and a decay parameter that is a function of the voltages and a duration since the last deactivation, [0029] the second parameter in equation (5) including V2,0.
Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operating of the battery is to charge and discharge the battery.
Chang teaches a method to adjust battery parameters based on battery power capability comprising a battery 24 with a plurality of cells 72, and a voltage sensor 80, [figs. 1, 2, 0019], and a controller 76, [fig. 2, 0019]; wherein the controller determines the open circuit voltage Voc and determine the battery power capability based on the Voc, including maximum power provided to the battery, i.e. charging, and power that can be provided by the battery, i.e. discharging, [0021, 0044]; wherein the controller charges and discharges the battery, [0030, 0046] based on the battery power capability, [0021, 0044].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee with that of Chang so that the system can maximize the lifetime of the battery.
As to claims 10, 12-15 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claims 2, 4-7, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights