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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated January 17, 2024, claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7 should be included with line 6 rather than being separated into a different element.
Claims 2-8 are objected to due to their dependency from an objected to claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites “set the lower limit of the temperature range to a lower value when a load of the driving source is high than when the load of the driving source is low”. However, it is unclear as to what on the load is high or low.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tonozuka et al. US20120280050A1.
Regarding claim 1. Tonozuka discloses an electrified vehicle (¶27), comprising:
an energy storage device (1) configured to supply power to a driving source (implicit in a battery of an electric vehicle);
a temperature adjustment device (3c) configured to perform temperature adjustment of the energy storage device (¶39); and
an electronic control unit (battery controller 3) configured to operate the temperature adjustment device (temperature regulating part 3c) when a temperature of the energy storage device (1) falls within a temperature range in which the temperature adjustment is performed (¶39),
wherein the electronic control unit (3) is configured to, when in a situation where charging is predicted to be performed after traveling of the electrified vehicle (it is implicit that a battery of an EV would need to be charged after traveling), set either an upper or lower limit of the temperature range using a state of charge of the energy storage device (¶62- target temperature to a permissible upper limit).
Regarding claim 2. Tonozuka discloses that the temperature adjustment device includes a cooling device (2) configured to cool the energy storage device (¶67), and
the electronic control unit (3) is configured to, when in the situation where charging is predicted to be performed after traveling of the electrified vehicle, set the lower limit of the temperature range to a lower value when the state of charge of the energy storage device is low than when the state of charge of the energy storage device is high (¶76 – temperature control sent to the air conditioner unit 2 so the battery temp at the charge start becomes equal to the target temperature; FIG. 3 – as charging continues and SOC increases the temperature increases).
Regarding claim 3. Tonozuka discloses that the electronic control unit (3) is configured to determine that the situation is that charging is predicted to be performed after traveling of the electrified vehicle, when a facility configured to perform charging is set as a destination of the electrified vehicle (S1; ¶41-43 – determination of whether a rapid charge is necessary – driver selects a charge station as a destination).
Regarding claim 4. Tonozuka discloses that the electronic control unit (3) is configured to set the lower limit of the temperature range to a lower value when the state of charge at a time the facility is set as the destination (¶43 – driver selects a charging station) is low than when the state of charge at the time the facility is set as the destination is high (¶44 – temperature is input into the battery controller; ¶46 – estimate amount of heat generation due to rapid charge; FIG. 3 – if the SOC is lower, then less time is needed for charging and less heat generation. Thus, the temperature range for a vehicle with a higher SOC is less than that of a vehicle with a lower SOC. Because the permissible upper limit is constant, it is the lower limit of the temperature that is reduced when the SOC is lower)
Regarding claim 5. Tonozuka discloses that the electronic control unit is configured to set the lower limit of the temperature range to a lower value when the state of charge at a time the electrified vehicle arrives at the destination is low than when the state of charge at the time the electrified vehicle arrives at the destination is high (¶44 – temperature is input into the battery controller; ¶46 – estimate amount of heat generation due to rapid charge; FIG. 3 – if the SOC is lower, then less time is needed for charging and less heat generation. Thus, the temperature range for a vehicle with a higher SOC is less than that of a vehicle with a lower SOC. Because the permissible upper limit is constant, it is the lower limit of the temperature that is reduced when the SOC is lower).
Regarding claim 7. Tonozuka discloses that the electronic control unit is configured to set the lower limit of the temperature range to a lower value when a load of the driving source is high than when the load of the driving source is low (FIG. 3 – when the SOC is low and requiring more to charge, then the temperature is reduced lower to reach a full charge. If the SOC is higher, then the temperature is not reduced as far).
Regarding claim 9. Tonozuka discloses a method for controlling an electrified vehicle (¶27), the electrified vehicle being equipped with an energy storage device (1) configured to supply power to a driving source (implicit in a battery of an electric vehicle) and a temperature adjustment device (temperature regulating part 3c) configured to perform temperature adjustment of the energy storage device (¶39), the method comprising:
operating the temperature adjustment device temperature regulating part 3c) when a temperature of the energy storage device falls within a temperature range in which the temperature adjustment is performed (¶39); and
when in a situation where charging is predicted to be performed after traveling of the electrified vehicle (it is implicit that a battery of an EV would need to be charged after traveling), setting either an upper or lower limit of the temperature range using a state of charge of the energy storage device (¶62- target temperature to a permissible upper limit).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonozuka et al. US20120280050A1 in view of Durrani et al. US20210291622A1.
Regarding claim 6. Tonozuka does not explicitly disclose that the electronic control unit is configured to set the lower limit of the temperature range to a lower value when an outside air temperature is high than when the outside air temperature is low.
Durani discloses that the electronic control unit is configured to set the lower limit of the temperature range to a lower value when an outside air temperature is high than when the outside air temperature is low (¶76 – at high ambient temperature the battery is cooled to keep the temperature of the battery lower).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further reduce the lower temperature of Tonozuka due to the ambient temperature as taught by Durani in order to maximize the efficiency of the system (¶76).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonozuka et al. US20120280050A1 in view of Murata et al. US20170120775A1.
Regarding claim 8. Tonozuka does not explicitly disclose that the temperature adjustment device includes a heating device configured to heat the energy storage device, and the electronic control unit is configured to, when in the situation where charging is predicted to be performed after traveling of the electrified vehicle, set the upper limit of the temperature range to a higher value when the state of charge of the energy storage device is low than when the state of charge of the energy storage device is high.
Murata discloses that the temperature adjustment device includes
a heating device (40) configured to heat the energy storage device (1) (¶56 – battery heater 40 is a heating device for raising the temperature of the battery 1), and
the electronic control unit (10) is configured to,
when in the situation where charging is predicted to be performed after traveling of the electrified vehicle (it is implicit that a battery of an EV would need to be charged after traveling), set the upper limit of the temperature range to a higher value when the state of charge of the energy storage device is low than when the state of charge of the energy storage device is high (¶72 – heat supplied to the battery – thus increasing the range of the temperature, when the SOC is smaller than a threshold value).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a heater to a battery to increase the temperature to prevent deterioration of the battery due to non-optimal battery operating conditions (Murata; ¶72).
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kinoshita et al. US20130288089A1 discloses a system for heating a battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM..
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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights