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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should written into independent form to include all the appropriate limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal, US Pub. 2020/0254898, in view of Rovik et al, US Pub. 2013/0249276.
Singhal discloses systems and methods for battery charge replenishment in an electric vehicle comprising: reserving the additional capacity of a total capacity of the electrochemical energy store, which is not used for regular driving operation of the electrically drivable vehicle( Battery Management Systems commonly reserve a portion of the battery state of charge to prevent deep discharge and preserved battery life); b) determining a range predicted with the additional capacity based on a route profile between a current position of the electrically drivable vehicle and a predetermined destination, weather conditions, traffic conditions, vehicle type of the electrically drivable vehicle, and/or driver profile (par. 0107, 0136); c) outputting the determined predicted range if the predicted range of the electrically drivable vehicle falls below a predetermined minimum range to be achieved by the electrically drivable vehicle (it is common for conventional EV navigation system to display remaining range and to issue warnings when predicted range is insufficient to reach the destination); d)
Singhal generally discloses a method for operating an electrically drivable vehicle including determining a predicted vehicle range using navigation information, including a current vehicle position, a destination, route information, weather conditions, traffic conditions, and vehicle operating characteristics; including displaying the predicted range when the remaining range is below a predetermined threshold, but fails to expressly disclose reserving an additional battery capacity that is unavailable during normal driving, detecting a request to release the reserved capacity, comparing the request to predetermined release criteria, and releasing the reserved capacity after satisfaction of the release criteria.
Rovik et al disclose an electric vehicle reserved charge authorization and distribution comprising: reserving a battery reserve unavailable during ordinary vehicle operation (e.g., ¶¶ 21-36); receiving a request from a driver or authorized user to access the reserve (¶¶ 37-44); determining whether release conditions or authorization requirements are satisfied (¶¶ 40-47); releasing the reserved battery capacity after successful authorization (¶¶ 45-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the battery management system of Singhal to incorporate the reserve-capacity authorization system of Rovik et al in order to provide emergency battery reserve functionality while preventing unnecessary depletion of battery capacity and improving vehicle operability during low-energy situations. Such a modification merely combines known battery management techniques according to their established functions to obtain predictable results. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Singhal teaches calculating an alternative predicted driving range using reduced power consumption, including limiting vehicle speed, limiting acceleration, and reducing electrical loads in order to extend vehicle range. Singhal as modified by Rovik et al would render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Singhal teaches navigation functions that identify nearby destinations including parking facilities, service facilities, and other points of interest when the predicted vehicle range becomes insufficient. Singhal as modified by Rovik et al would render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Rovik et al teach reserving a predetermined portion of battery capacity using the vehicle battery management controller (¶¶ 21-36). Singhal as modified by Rovik et al would render the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 5-6, Rovik et al generally teach controlled battery reserve management and Singhal teaches having reserved battery stored in the vehicle (see par. 0107 of Singhal). Singhal as modified by Rovik et al would render the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 7-9, the limitations have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, Singhal as modified store energy for operating electric vehicles (see the rejection of claims 1-9 above). Singhal as modified by Rovik et al would render the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. 2020/0130511 and US Patent 11,598,819, disclose EV systems and methods for managing battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights