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 Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on 16 February 2026 and a request for continued examination (RCE) received 16 March 2026. Claim(s)s 1, 3 and 6 have been amended. Claims 1-11 remain pending. This communication is the third Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: battery monitor units interpreted in view of Applicant disclosure as BMUs 11 and 12.
MPEP § 2181, I. A. provides a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 6: Applicant has amended claims to include:
one or more battery monitor units comprised in the ESS,
The term battery monitor units is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as BMUs 11 and 12 of Applicant Fig. 2. However, Applicant disclosure does not disclose sufficient corresponding structure that performs or can perform the recited function of battery monitoring as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
BMUs 11 and 12 are merely boxes on batteries B1 and B2 of Fig. 2. Applicant specification is completely silent as to what sensors it contains (if any), what signals it receives (if any), or what circuitry specifically performs the alleged monitoring. Because there is no corresponding structure linked to the claimed function, the metes and bounds of the claim term are indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further, Applicant has amended to include obtaining, from one or more battery monitor units comprised in the ESS, a parameter representing a charge ability of the ESS and a parameter representing an actual charging power or current received and measured by the one or more battery monitor units comprised in the ESS;
However, there is again no structure disclosed by Applicant disclosure as to how the charge ability is obtained, or how an actual charging power or current is received and measured structurally. Even if a person of ordinary skill was to generally understand that a BMU in the art might include sensors and monitoring electronics, the Applicant disclosure does not clearly tie any such structure to the claimed BMU functionality.
Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 6, Applicant has amended to include:
obtaining, from one or more battery monitor units comprised in the ESS, a parameter representing a charge ability of the ESS and a parameter representing an actual charging power or current received and measured by the one or more battery monitor units comprised in the ESS;
However, there is no support in Applicant disclosure of BMUs 11 and 12 of Fig. 2 obtaining an actual charging power or current [that] is received and measured. Even if a person of ordinary skill was to generally understand that a BMU in the art may include sensors and monitoring electronics, the Applicant disclosure does not clearly tie any such structure to the claimed BMU functionality.
At best, Applicant disclosure merely states that these values are measured by the ESS (see Applicant disclosure [0008]-[0009] and [0033]). Applicant appears to rely purely on inference of Applicant Fig. 2, which is improper.
This limitation is therefore not supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, and is considered new matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further in regards to claims 1 and 6: Applicant has amended to include:
providing the adjusted value of charge ability to a power-to-mechanical conversion unit comprising one or more electric machines,
However, there is no support in Applicant disclosure that power-to-mechanical conversion unit (PMU) 130 comprises electric machines 141, 142. In fact, Fig. 2 clearly shows them as separate devices. This limitation is therefore not supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, and is considered new matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further in regards to claims 1, 3 and 6: Applicant has amended to include:
comparing the actual charging power or current with the value of the charge ability that is currently present;
adjusting the that is currently present based on the comparing result by increasing or decreasing the value of the charge ability of the ESS;
and
increasing the value of charge ability if the actual charging power or current is smaller than the current value of charge ability that is currently present; and
decreasing the value of charge ability if the actual charging power or current is larger than the current value of charge ability that is currently present.
However, Applicant disclosure does not provide explicit support for iterations of the charging ability “that is currently present”, as amended. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Dependent claims of the rejected claims above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) at least due to dependency on these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsutani (US 20110285350 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, as best understood, Mitsutani discloses the following:
1. A method performed by a control unit (CU) comprised in an energy management system (EMS) (see at least Figs. 1-4, items 40, 32, 46)
for controlling charging of an energy storage system (ESS), (see at least Fig. 1, items 10-1, 10-2 and 10-3 and [0027] “battery”)
comprising one or more batteries configured to store energy and provide power, (see at least [0081] “When power storage device 10-1 is charged by charger 42, charge power detection unit 52 calculates the charge power of power storage device 10-1 based on the detected values of voltage VB1 and current IB1”)
the method comprising:
obtaining, from one or more battery monitor units comprised in the ESS, a parameter representing a charge ability of the ESS and a parameter representing an actual charging power or current received and measured by the one or more battery monitor units comprised in the ESS; (see at least [0080] “when state of charge SOC of the power storage device as a target to be charged is high, target charge power PR is set to be relatively small” and [0081] “When power storage device 10-1 is charged by charger 42, charge power detection unit 52 calculates the charge power of power storage device 10-1 based on the detected values of voltage VB1 and current IB1”)
comparing the actual charging power or current with the value of the charge ability that is currently present; (see at least Fig. 5, items 51-53 and 55 and [0079]-[0087] “Subtraction unit 53”, “Feedback control unit 54” and “correction value PC”)
adjusting the value of charge ability that is currently present based on the comparing result by increasing or decreasing the value of the charge ability of the ESS; (see at least Fig. 5, items 53-57 and 66 and [0083]-[0088] “Upper limit guard processing unit 66” and “power command value CHPW”, see also Fig. 8, step S3-S5)
and providing the adjusted value of charge ability to a power-to-mechanical conversion unit comprising one or more electric machines the power-to-mechanical conversion unit being configured to generate one or more control signals to the one or more electric machines, based on the adjusted value of charge ability for controlling charging power delivered to the ESS by the one or more electric machines comprised in a vehicle. (see at least [0034] “motor generator 32-2 operates as a regenerative brake”, [0035] “MG-ECU 40 generates signals PWC1 and PWC2 for driving converters 12-1 and 12-2”, [0043] “Based on each of the above detected values, charging ECU 46 performs feedback correction for power command value CHPW of charger 42 such that the charge power actually supplied to power storage devices 10-1 to 10-3 is equal to target value PR”)
In regards to Claim 2, Mitsutani discloses the following:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the method for controlling charging of the energy storage system (ESS) is performed during a regeneration braking period of the vehicle. (see at least [0034] “motor generator 32-2 operates as a regenerative brake”)
In regards to Claim 3, Mitsutani suggests the following:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the value of charge ability that is currently present based on the comparing result comprises:
increasing the value of charge ability if the actual charging power or current is smaller than the value of charge ability that is currently present; (see at least previous citations, see also Fig. 8, step S3-S5)
and decreasing the value of charge ability if the actual charging power or current (P/Ia) is larger than the value of charge ability that is currently present. (see at least previous citations, see also Fig. 8, step S3-S5)
In regards to Claim 4, Mitsutani discloses the following:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein one or more control signals are generated based on the adjusted value of charge ability for controlling the charging power delivered by one or more electric machines comprised in the vehicle such that: the charging power is increased if the charging power delivered by the one or more electric machines is smaller than the adjusted value of charge ability; or the charging power is decreased if the charging power delivered by the one or more electric machines is larger than the adjusted value of charge ability. (see at least previous citations, see also Fig. 8, step S3-S5 and [0101] “candidate value of power command value CHPW which is to be provided to charger 42”)
In regards to claims 6-7: Claims 6-7 are the systems performing the methods of claims 1-2, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 1-2, above.
In regards to claims 8 and 9: Claims 8 and 9 claim vehicle(s) comprising the systems of claims 6 and a vehicle comprising a processor performing the method of claim 1, respectively. Mitsutani discloses a vehicle (see at least [0008] “charging system for a vehicle for charging a power storage device mounted in the vehicle.”) comprising the systems of claim 6, performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claims 8 and 9 are rejected the same or similar to claims 6 and 1, above.
In regards to claims 10-11: Claims 10-11 are the non-transitory computer program product and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium performing the method of claims 1, and are therefore also rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsutani et al. (US 20110285350 A1) herein Mitsutani.
In regards to claim 5, Mitsutani suggests the following:
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving by the CU a signal from the power-to-mechanical conversion unit (PMU); and determining by the CU whether or not to start the control procedure based on the received signal. (see at least previous citations, see also Fig. 8, step S1-S6 and [0101] “candidate value of power command value CHPW which is to be provided to charger 42”)
Mitsutani discloses receiving a signal and performance of a control procedure, as cited. Mitsutani does not explicitly disclose determining whether or not to start said control procedure, Mitsutani simply discloses receiving said signal and performance. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether or not to start the control procedure of Mitsutani based on the received signal, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing control/feedback adjustments when corrections are not necessary due to PR and PM2 being relatively equal. One of ordinary skill would understand that when these values are relatively equal, further adjustments may be unnecessary and redundant. Further, the results of this modification would have been predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) interpretation have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive. See the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections for details.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
In response to arguments on page 7 of arguments that “Mitsutani further fails to disclose adapting ESS "charge ability" (i.e., battery charge acceptance capability) based on regenerative energy flow.”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As a preliminary matter, no claim language limits the claimed invention to embodiments involving “battery charge acceptance capability”. Further, Applicant does not assert a special definition for any term in the claim language limiting the claimed invention to “battery charge acceptance capability”. In fact, there is no claim language what-so-ever that limits the term charge ability in claim 1 or 6, or in dependent claims 2-5 and 1-11 beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the term.
Applicant disclosure [0024] states the following:
[0024] The charge ability of a battery is a parameter to describe how much power the battery will accept to charge at a moment. The charge ability may be represented by power or current and is illustrated in FIG. 1 by the dotted curve indicated with P/Ic. The charge ability of a battery may be affected by time, temperature, state-of-charge, charging voltage or battery history.
It is also noted that Applicant Fig. 1 shows P/lc (i.e. “charge ability”) of a battery decreasing and approaching zero between 90% and 100% SOC, clearly demonstrating a relationship between battery capacity and charge ability, as claimed.
Accordingly, the BRI of the claimed charge ability in view of Applicant disclosure is merely the ability of the batteries/ESS to charge.
In view of Applicant disclosure, the units of charge ability may (but is not required, per MPEP 2111)) be a power or a current.
In view of Applicant disclosure, charge ability may (but is not required, per MPEP 2111)) be based on time, temperature, state-of-charge, charging voltage, battery history and/or battery capacity.
Applicant is reminded that this is merely for determination of what is concretely within the BRI of the term. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, Applicant's arguments involve an improperly narrow interpretation of the claim language.
Mitsutani teaches a target charge power value determination PR that is based on the voltage value (SOC) of the power storage device to be charged, and/or the temperature of the power storage device. (Mitsutani, [0080]) Charge power PR is also demonstrated as dynamic in nature “set to be relatively large” when state of charge SOC of the power storage device is low, and set to be “relatively small” when the state of charge SOC of the power storage device is relatively high or when required due to temperature. (Mitsutani, [0080]) This term is considered dynamic in nature per Mitsutani, [0080] and as described in [0084] “feedback control”.
Accordingly, the target charge power of Mitsutani is indeed a dynamic power component that is based on based at least on temperature, state-of-charge and/or battery capacity, and fully meets the limitations of the claimed charge ability.
Applicant argues on page 7, paragraph 1 that “The system in Mitsutani ensures that actual charging power tracks a predefined target, but the battery's charge acceptance capability itself is not updated or adapted.” Applicant’s interpretation of Mitsutani is factually incorrect. As outlined above, [0080] and [0084] clearly demonstrate updating or adapted based at least on temperature, state-of-charge and/or battery capacity/
Applicant argues on page 7, paragraph 1 that “The charging control in Mitsutani is limited to charger supplied energy.” Applicant’s interpretation of Mitsutani is, again, factually incorrect. As was previously stated in the Response to Arguments section of the Office Action dated 12/18/2025, Applicant systematically ignores the citations made by the Examiner to Mitsutani [0034], [0035] and [0043] that clearly describe regenerative braking charging control. Applicant has narrowly interpreted the charging of Mitsutani to a singular charging embodiment disclosed when Mitsutani clearly discloses the charging strategy in general terms, also applicable to motor-generator charging discussed in Mitsutani [0034] - [0035] and [0043], as cited.
Further, it should be noted that Mitsutani first discloses charging via regenerating braking at [0034], where MG-ECU 40 generates generated signals PWC1 and PWC2 and outputs the generated signals PWI1 and PWI2 to inverters 30-1 and 30-2. (see [0035]) It is only in [0036] where Mitsutani discloses that MG-ECU 40 generates and outputs signals PWC1 and PWC2 to converters 12-1 and 12-2 such that charge power may be supplied from charger 42 sequentially through converters 12-2 and 12-1. Applicant is reminded that Mitsutani must be considered entirely, not narrow specific passages.
Applicant argues on page 7, paragraph 2 that “The feedback loop [of Mitsutani] operates to cause the actual charging power to follow PR. In Mitsutani, the actuator [understood as actual] output is adjusted to match a target. The PI correction is part of a feedback loop that regulates charger output. The purpose is to ensure that the actual charging power tracks the target command. The system assumes that PR represents the desired charging level and attempts to force the actuator to comply. Thus, even after correction, PR remains a control setpoint.” Applicant’s interpretation of Mitsutani is, again, factually incorrect, and takes a plurality of liberties from what is described in Mitsutani [0084]:
[0084] Feedback control unit 54 performs a proportional-plus-integral operation (PI control) using, as a control input, a deviation between monitor value PM2 received from subtraction unit 53 and target value PR of the charge power, and outputs the calculation result as a feedback correction value PC. Addition unit 55 adds correction value PC to target value PR. Addition unit 56 adds the calculation result in addition unit 55 to an expected value Paux of the electric power of the auxiliary machine, to which a charger loss Ploss is added by addition unit 57.
PR is not a control setpoint.
PR is not a desired charging level.
The target charge power PR is merely a target value for charging. This value is a power value, as detailed above, and is based at least on temperature, state-of-charge and/or battery capacity, and therefore fully meets the limitations of the claimed charge ability.
Applicant argues on page 7, paragraph 2 that “Applicant discloses modifying the battery capability parameter, not merely the charging command. Applicant discloses adjusting the capability parameter so that charging matches what the battery can truly accept. The charge ability represents the ESS's actual capability to accept charge. It is not merely a desired charging target.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no evidence that the metes and bounds of the claimed charge ability does not include a charge target. On the contrary, there is a plurality of evidence that the charge ability is, in fact, a charge target, most specifically Applicant Figure 1 that shows dotted line P/Ic (called charge ability by Applicant disclosure) as a “target” for P/I (called charging power by Applicant disclosure). Therefore this argument is also considered factually incorrect.
Applicant arguments detailed on page 8 appear to attempt to define the metes and bounds of the claimed charge ability by the “effects” and “aims”. This is understood to be the purpose or intended results of the invention. This is improper, and does not answer the question of what the claimed term actually denotes, and what objective metes and bounds the term includes.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Matsumoto et al. (US 20060152196 A1) – Matsumoto teaches a method of controlling battery current limiting controls including a maximum charging current value according to the state of charge of the battery. The method of controlling current limiting integrates battery charging current to compute a first state of charge, determines first charging current limit value candidates from that first state of charge, computes a second state of charge based on battery voltage, and determines second charging current limit value candidates from that second state of charge. Further, the method takes the smaller of the first and second charging current limit value candidates as the charging current limit values for charging the battery. (Abstract)
McGee et al. (US 20060022642 A1) – McGee teaches a control method for modifying battery charge power limits in a vehicle powertrain that includes an electric battery as a power source. The modification compensates for inaccurate estimates of battery charge power limits by using a closed loop feedback control based on error between a battery voltage set point and commanded battery voltage. (Abstract)
Bidarvatan et al. (US 20190344776 A1) – Bidarvatan teaches a hybrid electric vehicle configured to provide electricity to the battery (abstract) wherein when an intelligent vehicle controller receives a high voltage bus demand and a battery charge capability, such as a maximum charging rate, the intelligent vehicle controller can constrain the power level of ICE such that it is less than a power level that would exceed a battery charge capability or capabilities, such as capacity and charging rate. (see [0022], [0023] and [0026])
Follen et al. (US 20210086652 A1) – Follen teaches managing, by a controller, a state of charge of a battery of a hybrid vehicle at a particular location at a particular time based on a determined potential propulsion power for the vehicle; responsive to determining a downhill grade at the particular location, determining, by the controller, an amount of braking energy available during traversal of the downhill grade; and discharging, by the controller, the battery to direct energy to at least one of a generator or an electrified accessory of the hybrid vehicle before the downhill grade to enable reception of at least a portion of the determined amount of braking energy available. (Abstract) Follen further teaches reference points for the battery may be adjusted/managed in response to internal and external static and dynamic pieces of information. By adjusting the reference points (e.g., nominal SOC, maximum SOC, minimum SOC, etc.), and effectively control the energy discharge and charge ability of the battery responsive to static and dynamic operating conditions for the vehicle. (see [0079]) Pieces of information include temperature of the battery, a current into or out of the battery, a number of charge-discharge cycles, and a battery voltage. (see [0030], [0037])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
April 2, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights