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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show descriptive labels for Figures 1-3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled "Replacement Sheet" in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kruszelnicki (US 2018/0339597).
As to claim 1, Kruszelnicki discloses in figure 1 (see figure below), a method of performing a charging operation of an electrical energy storage system [see figure below; the protection circuit (48), the battery pack (46), the BMS (44) are part of the storage system which is equivalent with applicant’s electrical energy storage system] comprising charging electronics [protection circuit (48)], comprising the steps of a) determining at least one charging parameter relating to the electrical energy storage system [measuring battery parameters, voltage, temperature, SOC] 0); b) communicating the at least one charging parameter to the charging electronics [communicating battery temperatures to the protection circuit (48) of the storage system ] of the electrical energy storage system (30); c) starting the charging operation as a function of the at least one charging parameter [charging based on charging parameters].
PNG
media_image1.png
450
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Kruszelnicki discloses in figure 1 , a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, prompt said computer to perform the method according to claim 1 [noted that the controller and the BMS requires computer program to run the control charging of the battery].
As to claim 8, Kruszelnicki discloses in figure 1,
a machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program according to claim 7 is stored [the BMS and the controller have memory and data storage].
As to claim 9, Kruszelnicki discloses in figure 1, an electronic control unit (33) configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 [see ¶0056-0057].
As to claim 10, Kruszelnicki discloses in figure 1, an electrical energy storage system [see figure above] comprising at least one electrical energy storage unit [battery unit (46)], [BMS] according to claim 9 [see ¶0056-0057].
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruszelnicki in view of Iida et al. (US 20070212598), hereinafter Iida.
As to claim 2, Kruszelnicki discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the at least one charging parameter includes at least one heating process parameter of the electrical energy storage system (30) and/or at least one charging operation parameter of the electrical energy storage system (30).
Iida discloses in figure 2, wherein the at least one charging parameter includes at least one heating process parameter of the electrical energy storage system (30) and/or at least one charging operation parameter of the electrical energy storage system (30) [battery heating element (36) is disclosed; see ¶0043 and ¶0046].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use heating element in Kruzelnicki’s apparatus as taught by Iida in order to prevent early battery deterioration by suppressing temperature variations.
As to claim 3, Kruszelnicki discloses in figures 1-2, wherein the heating operation parameter includes a heating period of the electrical energy storage system (30) and/or a charging period of the electrical energy storage system (30) [see ¶0070; the battery is heating in different periods].
As to claim 4, Kruszelnicki discloses in figures 1-2, wherein the charging parameter includes a target state of charge of the electrical energy storage system (30) and/or a target temperature of the electrical energy storage system (30) [see ¶0012-0013; predetermined temperature is disclosed].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruszelnicki in view of Nomoto (US 9,350,191).
As to claim 5, Kruszelnicki discloses all of the limitations except, wherein the at least one charging parameter includes a minimum state of charge that may not be undershot during the charging operation of the electrical energy storage system (30).
Nomoto discloses in figure 3, wherein the at least one charging parameter includes a minimum state of charge that may not be undershot during the charging operation of the electrical energy storage system (30) [see figure 3, the battery charging is limited between the upper limit SOC and the lower limit SOC 2; see Col. 2, lines 32-49].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use state of charge of the battery of Kruszelnicki as taught by Nomoto in order to avoid battery overcharging. .
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruszelnicki in view of WO2022/112872, hereinafter 872’.
As to claim 6, Kruszelnicki discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein step a) comprises d) determining a starting location; e) determining a target location; wherein the charging parameter is determined as a function of the starting location and the target location.
872’ discloses in figure 1, , wherein step a) comprises d) determining a starting location; e) determining a target location; wherein the charging parameter is determined as a function of the starting location and the target location [charging parameter such as charging duration is determined based on the start location and the destination location; see page 2, lines 13-16 ; page 3, lines 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate start and destination location in Kruszelnicki’s charging apparatus as taught by 872’ in order to enhance vehicle battery charging.
Noted that the method steps will be met during the normal operation of the apparatus described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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 A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights