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 Claims
This office action is in response to application number 18/524,204 filed on 11/30/2023 in which
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/30/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, foreign reference one, DE-102016124521-A1 was not considered because it was not filed in English nor was a concise explanation of relevance filed with the reference. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the following reference characters have been used to designate the same part:
"300" and "116" have both been used to designate "control system,”
"400" and "320" have both been used to designate "control system,”
"420" and "352" have both been used to designate “power dissipation determination, “and
"450" and "356" have both been used to designate "power dissipation target determination.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to because:
FIG. 1, pg. 17, para 0031: 100 and 104 point to the same thing,
FIGs. 2A-2B, pg. 18, para 0032: 200 and 250 point to the same thing as 108, and
FIG. 3B: no reference characters are shown for EV 100.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 4A, pg. 23, para 0038: "fuel cell power 338 (FCEV-only), and engine motoring (REEV/REPB only)" should be "fuel cell power 338a (FCEV-only), and engine motoring 338b (REEV/REPB only)",
FIG. 4B, pg. 25, para 0040: "hardware (HW) constraints" should be "hardware (HW) constraints 430", and
FIG. 6B, pg. 30, para 0045: 662.
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 37 CFR 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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 17, para 0031: "driveline system 136" should be "driveline system 112",
Pg. 18, para 0032; pg. 20, para 0034: "battery system 124" should be "battery system 128",
Pg. 23, para 0038: "fuel cell system 2043" should be "fuel cell system 204",
Pg. 27, para 0042: "control methods 600, 630, and 660" should be "control methods 600, 630, and 670",
Pg. 27, para 0042: "method 630" should be "method 600", and
Pg. 31, para 0046: "At 608," should be "At 678,".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 10-11, 15, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 6) and Claim 11 (line 4): "enable/disable" should be "enable or disable"
Claim 5 (line 2) and Claim 15 (lines 2-3): "allocation/distribution" should be "allocation or distribution"
Claim 10 (line 4) and Claim 20 (line 4): "enablement/disablement" should be "enablement or disablement".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
"optimizers configured to" in Claim 2 (line 2).
Corresponding structure is not clearly identified in the specification. The specification, [pgs. 20-21, para 0035] describes the “optimizers” as being used to “monitor the operation of the power dissipation systems 330, as well as a regenerative torque capability 340 (e.g., associated with the regenerative braking system 140) and actual axle torques 344 of the vehicle 100” and “configured to optimize or adjust the operation of these power dissipation systems 330 to achieve desired power dissipation within a set of hardware limits/constraints.” The specification, [pg. 25, para 0040], also equates the “optimizers” to a ”hybrid controller optimizer,” where a controller is described as, [pg. 32, para 0048], “any suitable control device or set of multiple control devices that is/are configured to perform at least a portion of the techniques of the present application. Non-limiting examples include an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), one or more processors and a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the controller to perform a set of operations corresponding to at least a portion of the techniques of the present application.” For examination purposes, “optimizers” will be interpreted as a control module, or control unit, connected to the battery.
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 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 1 (line 6) recites the limitation "a .” “A control system” is already defined in Claim 1 (line 1). For clarity Claim 1 (line 6) should recite “the .”
Claim 5 (line 2) and Claim 15 (line 2) recite the limitation "the remainder." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 (lines 2-3) and Claim 18 (line 3) recite the limitation "the one or more operating parameters.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 (line 4) and Claim 18 (line 4) recite the limitation "the fuel cell system.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 (line 4) and Claim 20 (line 4) recite the limitation "the automated enablement/disablement.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected by dependency on Claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., PG Pub US-2013/0151050-A1 (herein "Cheng), in view of Treharne et al., PG Pub US-2013/0289809-A1 (herein "Treharne").
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng discloses: A control system for an electrified powertrain of an electrified vehicle, the control system comprising: a set of power dissipation systems each configured to operate and thereby dissipate electrical energy generated and/or stored by the electrified powertrain; and a control system configured to determine whether to enable/disable a power dissipation mode of the electrified powertrain, and when the power dissipation mode is enabled: […] determine a target power dissipation based on […], a regenerative torque capability of a regenerative braking system of the electrified powertrain, and a set of operating parameters of the electrified vehicle; determine an allocation or distribution of the target power dissipation between the set of power dissipation systems; and control the set of power dissipation systems to achieve the target power dissipation. See [Cheng, pg. 1, para 0002], which describes a power dissipation system for an electric vehicle, “The present disclosure relates to the field of hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) and battery electric vehicles (BEV), and more particularly to an electric power dissipation system and method for hybrid electric and battery electric vehicles.” See also [Cheng, pg. 1, para 0009], which explains that the battery state includes a state of charge and temperature, which are used as inputs to require operation of power dissipation, “As disclosed herein, the state of the battery includes a state of charge of the battery, a battery temperature, and/or a fault condition. The motor control unit selects the normal motor control operation if the state of charge of the battery is below a predetermined value and selects the power dissipation motor control operation if the state of charge of the battery is above a predetermined value.” See also [Cheng, pg. 1, paras 0004 and 0006], which explain that the electric vehicle uses coast-down and regenerative braking to recover power, which are further managed based on the battery state of charge, “[0004] […] One of the desired features for hybrid electric and battery electric vehicles is to have a coast-down performance similar to that of conventional vehicles. This requires the electric motor to provide certain brake torque to the vehicle when the accelerator pedal is released. In other words, the mechanical power is converted to electric power and fed back to the battery. This is also called coast-down regenerative braking. Regenerative braking is an energy recovery mechanism that slows down a vehicle by converting its kinetic energy into another form--in the case of hybrid electric and battery electric vehicles, the kinetic energy is converted into electrical energy. In conventional braking systems (i.e., for internal combustion engine vehicles), by contrast, excess kinetic energy is converted into heat by friction in the brake linings; therefore, the excess energy is wasted in these vehicles. For hybrid electric and battery electric vehicles, however, the excess energy can be stored in a battery or bank of capacitors for later use. […]. [0006] Under certain conditions such as e.g., when the SOC is nearly full or the battery temperature is high, if coast-down regeneration is not allowed, the electric motor suddenly has to remove all of its braking torque to prevent the current (i.e., energy converted from kinetic energy) from charging the battery. This affects the smoothness of the driving experience as perceived and felt by the driver. This will give the driver inconsistent drive performance when the above conditions exist compared to when they do not. Thus, there is a need to allow regenerative braking in hybrid electric and battery electric vehicles under all circumstances even when the regeneration current cannot be fed back to the battery.” Finally, see [Cheng, pgs. 2, para 0025-0026], which further explains a power dissipation process that includes sensing and managing dissipation to other loads and determination of a power dissipation mode, using a consumption equation, load models and lookup tables, and a calibration process, “FIG. 3 illustrates an example motor control process 40 having a power dissipation process 60 in accordance with the present disclosure. In a desired embodiment, the process 40 is implemented in software operated by control unit 30 or other processor. The power dissipation process 60 includes, among other processing, a current regulator process 62 and i.sub.q process 64. The current regulator process 62 […] tries to regulate the DC current feedback to the current reference value. The DC bus voltage V.sub.dc and current feedbacks i.sub.ds are sensed and the DC power consumption P can be calculated by equation (7). Depending on the i.sub.dc.sub.--.sub.ref value, either zero or a positive value for more power consumption by the motor and other loads in the system, the DC current feedback is compared with the reference value and fed to the current regulator. The "other loads" could be, for example, a DC/DC converter (e.g., 300V to 12V), heater or cooler, and all other auxiliary loads that are connected to the high voltage DC bus. The auxiliary loads can be factored into the determination by use of load reference models or look-up tables for a more accurate calculation. The commanded i.sub.d is calculated by equation (6) and is compensated by the output of the current regulator process 62. The commanded i.sub.d can also be obtained by using look-up tables that can take motor/vehicle parameter uncertainty and other vehicle power loads into consideration to get better accuracy of the power consumption. [0026] The i.sub.d, i.sub.q calculation for normal motor torque control (i.e., when power dissipation mode is not needed) is performed in process 42. It should be appreciated that the process 42 can also be implemented by using a look-up table 42' […] with calibration entries to accommodate the uncertainty of the motor and other loads in the vehicle; this may allow for a more accurate calculation. The motor stator resistance value is also compensated for by stator temperature feedback. In other words, the motor stator resistance is compensated for by stator temperature feedback. Thus, for more accurate calculations, a sensor may be used to sense the temperature and calculate the resistance based on that temperature. For a given i.sub.d and commanded torque, the commanded i.sub.q is calculated by equation (3). I.sub.d and i.sub.q are limited by the intersection point of torque and current limit circle (i.sub.d.sub.--.sub.max, i.sub.q.sub.--.sub.max). Depending on whether the drive system is in the power dissipation mode or not, a motor control process 44 will take input either the normal current command or the disclosed novel power dissipation current command.”
Cheng does not disclose: […] determine a torque request for the electrified powertrain based on a driver torque request and a set of negative torque requestors; [determine a target power dissipation based on] the determined torque request, […]; […] and thereby reduce a thermal load on a friction brake system of the electrified vehicle.
However, Treharne teaches: […] determine a torque request for the electrified powertrain based on a driver torque request and a set of negative torque requestors; [determine a target power dissipation based on] the determined torque request, […]; […] and thereby reduce a thermal load on a friction brake system of the electrified vehicle. See [Treharne, pg. 3, paras 0029-0031], which describe a driver controls system that includes an acceleration system with sensors for receiving torque requests from the driver and a braking system for receiving brake torque requests from the driver and controlling the regenerative braking and friction braking, “[0029] Also shown in FIG. 1 are simplified schematic representations of a driver controls system 54 and a navigation system 56. The driver controls system 54 includes acceleration and gear selection (shifting) systems (all not shown). The acceleration system includes an accelerator pedal having one or more sensors, which provide information such as a driver request for vehicle propulsion (drive torque request) to the vehicle controller. […]. [0030] The braking system 16 provides friction braking of the vehicle 12. The braking system includes a brake pedal 58 for receiving an input force from the driver. […]. Each brake line L1, L2, L3 and L4 extends to a brake caliper that is mounted to one of the wheels, for applying a frictional braking torque to the corresponding wheel for decelerating the vehicle. [0031] […]. The BPP signal is indicative of a driver request for brake torque (brake torque request). The brake controller 68 also receives input that corresponds to an accelerator pedal position. The brake controller 68 determines a total brake torque value based on the brake pedal position and the accelerator pedal position. The brake controller 68 communicates with the vehicle controller 14 to coordinate regenerative braking and friction braking.” See also [Treharne, pgs.3-4, paras 0033-0035], which explain that a brake controller and a vehicle coordinate regenerative braking and friction brake to calculate a total brake torque value and further, utilizes regenerative braking to reduce the thermal load on the friction braking system, “[0033] The brake controller 68 communicates with the vehicle controller 14 to coordinate regenerative braking and friction braking. The brake controller 68 provides an input signal to the vehicle controller 14 that corresponds to a total brake torque value. The vehicle controller 14 then compares the total brake torque value to other information to determine a regenerative brake torque value and a friction brake torque value, where the sum of the regenerative brake torque value and the friction brake torque value is approximately equal to the total brake torque value. […]. The vehicle controller 14 provides the regenerative brake torque value to the TCM 36, which in turn controls the motor 18 to provide regenerative braking. The vehicle controller also provides the friction brake torque value to the brake controller 68, which in turn controls the actuator 70 to provide friction braking. [0034] […]. Compression braking represents the frictional losses within an engine of a conventional vehicle, when a driver releases the accelerator pedal. Similarly, the braking system provides a total brake torque value when the accelerator pedal is released, even if the brake pedal is not depressed. The vehicle controller 14 then compares the total brake torque value to other information to determine a regenerative brake torque value and a friction brake torque value. [0035] The vehicle 12 utilizes regenerative braking as the primary braking source, and supplements with friction braking when there is insufficient available regenerative brake torque to satisfy the total brake torque. Regenerative braking recharges the main battery 32 and recovers much of the energy that would otherwise be lost as heat during friction braking. Therefore regenerative braking improves the overall efficiency or fuel economy of the vehicle as compared to vehicles that are only configured for friction braking.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Treharne to consider driver torque requests, a total torque request, and heating of the friction brake in energy recovery, especially using regenerative braking. Doing so improves efficiency and fuel economy [Treharne, pg. 4, para 0035] and allows the system to determine total brake torque to predict and manage potential powertrain oscillation, which can damage the powertrain and cause unpleasant noise and vibration [Treharne pg. 1, paras 0004-0008] and further allow unnoticeable transitions between braking states [Treharne, pg. 6, para 0062].
Regarding Claim 6, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Cheng further discloses: […] wherein the set of negative torque requestors includes […], and a zero pedal or deceleration coast down torque request. See again [Cheng, pg. 1, paras 0004 and 0006], which explain that the electric vehicle uses coast-down and regenerative braking to recover power, which are further managed based on the battery state of charge.
Cheng does not disclose: requestors includes a brake torque request, an actual or driver-intended torque request, […].
However, Treharne teaches: requestors includes a brake torque request, an actual or driver-intended torque request, […]. See again [Treharne, pg. 3, paras 0029-0031], which describe a driver controls system that includes an acceleration system with sensors for receiving torque requests from the driver and a braking system for receiving brake torque requests from the driver and controlling the regenerative braking and friction braking. Also see again [Treharne, pgs.3-4, paras 0033-0035], which explain that a brake controller and a vehicle coordinate regenerative braking and friction brake to calculate a total brake torque value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Treharne to consider braking and driver torque requests as a negative torque requestor. Doing so improves efficiency and fuel economy [Treharne, pg. 4, para 0035] and allows the system to determine total brake torque to predict and manage potential powertrain oscillation, which can damage the powertrain and cause unpleasant noise and vibration [Treharne pg. 1, paras 0004-0008] and further allow unnoticeable transitions between braking states [Treharne, pg. 6, para 0062].
Regarding Claim 11, Cheng discloses: A control method for an electrified powertrain of an electrified vehicle, the control method comprising: determining, by a control system of the electrified vehicle, whether to enable/disable a power dissipation mode for the electrified powertrain; and when the power dissipation mode is enabled: […] determining, by the control system, a target power dissipation based on […] , a regenerative torque capability of a regenerative braking system of the electrified powertrain, and a set of operating parameters of the electrified vehicle; determining, by the control system, an allocation or distribution of the target power dissipation between a set of power dissipation systems of the electrified vehicle, wherein each power dissipation system of the set of power dissipation systems is configured to operate and thereby dissipate electrical energy generated and/or stored by the electrified powertrain; and controlling, by the control system, the set of power dissipation systems to achieve the target power dissipation […]. See again [Cheng, pg. 1, para 0002], which describes a power dissipation system for an electric vehicle. Also see again [Cheng, pg. 1, para 0009], which explains that the battery state includes a state of charge and temperature, which are used as inputs to require operation of power dissipation. Also see again [Cheng, pg. 1, paras 0004 and 0006], which explain that the electric vehicle uses coast-down and regenerative braking to recover power, which are further managed based on the battery state of charge. Finally, see again [Cheng, pgs. 2, para 0025-0026], which further explains a power dissipation process that includes sensing and managing dissipation to other loads and determination of a power dissipation mode, using a consumption equation, load models and lookup tables, and a calibration process.
Cheng does not disclose: […] determining, by the control system, a torque request for the electrified powertrain based on a driver torque request and a set of negative torque requestors; [determining, by the control system, a target power dissipation based on] the determined torque request, […]; […] and thereby reduce a thermal load on a friction brake system of the electrified vehicle.
However, Treharne teaches: […] determining, by the control system, a torque request for the electrified powertrain based on a driver torque request and a set of negative torque requestors; [determining, by the control system, a target power dissipation based on] the determined torque request, […]; […] and thereby reduce a thermal load on a friction brake system of the electrified vehicle. See again [Treharne, pg. 3, paras 0029-0031], which describe a driver controls system that includes an acceleration system with sensors for receiving torque requests from the driver and a braking system for receiving brake torque requests from the driver and controlling the regenerative braking and friction braking. Also see again [Treharne, pgs.3-4, paras 0033-0035], which explain that a brake controller and a vehicle coordinate regenerative braking and friction brake to calculate a total brake torque value and further, utilizes regenerative braking to reduce the thermal load on the friction braking system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Treharne to consider driver torque requests, a total torque request, and heating of the friction brake in energy recovery, especially using regenerative braking. Doing so improves efficiency and fuel economy [Treharne, pg. 4, para 0035] and allows the system to determine total brake torque to predict and manage potential powertrain oscillation, which can damage the powertrain and cause unpleasant noise and vibration [Treharne pg. 1, paras 0004-0008] and further allow unnoticeable transitions between braking states [Treharne, pg. 6, para 0062].
Regarding Claim 16, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Cheng further discloses: […] wherein the set of negative torque requestors […], and a zero pedal or deceleration coast down torque request. See again [Cheng, pg. 1, paras 0004 and 0006], which explain that the electric vehicle uses coast-down and regenerative braking to recover power, which are further managed based on the battery state of charge.
Cheng does not disclose: torque requestors includes a brake torque request, an actual or driver-intended torque request […].
However, Treharne teaches: requestors includes a brake torque request, an actual or driver-intended torque request, […]. See again [Treharne, pg. 3, paras 0029-0031], which describe a driver controls system that includes an acceleration system with sensors for receiving torque requests from the driver and a braking system for receiving brake torque requests from the driver and controlling the regenerative braking and friction braking. Also see again [Treharne, pgs.3-4, paras 0033-0035], which explain that a brake controller and a vehicle coordinate regenerative braking and friction brake to calculate a total brake torque value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Treharne to consider braking and driver torque requests as a negative torque requestor. Doing so improves efficiency and fuel economy [Treharne, pg. 4, para 0035] and allows the system to determine total brake torque to predict and manage potential powertrain oscillation, which can damage the powertrain and cause unpleasant noise and vibration [Treharne pg. 1, paras 0004-0008] and further allow unnoticeable transitions between braking states [Treharne, pg. 6, para 0062].
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Treharne and further in view of Flatland, Patent No. US-11,602,999-B1 (herein “Flatland”) and Telford, PG Pub US-2025/0115168-A1 (herein "Telford").
Regarding Claim 2, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Cheng further discloses: […] wherein the control system further comprises a set of optimizers configured to optimize the allocation or distribution of the target power dissipation among the set of power dissipation systems based on a regenerative torque capability of a regenerative braking system of the electrified powertrain […]. See again [Cheng, pgs. 2, para 0025-0026], which further explains a power dissipation process that includes sensing and managing dissipation to other loads and determination of a power dissipation mode, using a consumption equation, load models and lookup tables, and a calibration process. See also [Cheng, pg. 2 para 0024], which describes the vehicle system that includes the battery control module for controlling the battery, “FIG. 2 illustrates an electrical system overview of a hybrid electric vehicle. The electrical system includes a battery 10, which is an electric battery, connected to a battery control module 20 and a power electronics and motor control unit 30. The battery control module 20 monitors and controls the functions of the battery 10. For example, the battery control module 20 can detect the state of charge of the battery and/or the battery's temperature. The power electronics and motor control unit 30 contains motor control process 40 (described below) and is also connected to an electric motor 50, which can be for example, an interior permanent magnet motor,” and [Cheng, pg. 3, para 0027], which further explains that the battery control module monitors the battery parameters and state to coordinate the power dissipation process, “According to the present disclosure, the battery control module 20 monitors the state of the battery 10 (e.g., SOC or temperature of the battery). Depending on the state of the battery, the motor control process 40 will switch the operation of the motor control process 44 to use either use normal motor control (i.e., under a normal battery condition) or the disclosed power dissipation motor control process in accordance with the disclosed principles (i.e., under a constrained battery condition). By dissipating the power in the motor stator windings, the vehicle can maintain the coast-down braking torque without charging the battery, which can improve vehicle drive performance when power limits are constrained. The motor control process can not only produce zero charging current to the battery, it can also follow a prescribed commanded DC discharge current to dissipate more power from the battery. This accelerates the warm-up process of the battery or prevent a battery overcharge condition.” Finally see again [Cheng, pg. 1, paras 0004 and 0006], which explain that the electric vehicle uses coast-down and regenerative braking to recover power, which are further managed based on the battery state of charge.
Cheng does not disclose: […] actual axle torques of the electrified powertrain, and states of the set of negative torque requestors and the set of power dissipation systems.
However, Flatland teaches: […] actual axle torques of the electrified powertrain, and states of the set of negative torque requestors […]. See [Flatland, col 2, lines 21-51], which explain that the power draw includes operations of systems that can include activating different drive motors using the vehicle axles, which contributes to a change in torque requested and available for use by the vehicle, “A respective power draw, thermal load, aerodynamic drag, and/or other such load or demand may be associated with the operation of one or more such systems. For example, transitioning from front-wheel drive operation of the vehicle to all-wheel drive operation of the vehicle may result in an increase in torque available for vehicle propulsion. Transitioning from front-wheel drive operation to all-wheel drive operation may include activating, connecting, and/or otherwise engaging a second or additional vehicle drive motor with a vehicle drive axle, and such engagement may result in the increase in available torque noted above. Transitioning from front-wheel drive operation to all-wheel drive operation may also require engaging a clutch, spinning up a corresponding clutch plate, and/or activating one or more additional powertrain components. Such operations may place corresponding power demands on a battery or one or more other resources of the vehicle.” See also [Flatland, col 6, lines 15-67], which describes the predictive control system and explains it is used for estimating power and load demands, including a total torque demand, “For example, a prediction system, planning system, and/or other system associated with the local vehicle computing device may generate and/or otherwise determine at least a portion of the planned travel path 146 […]. One or more such systems of the vehicle 102 may provide the planned travel path 146 to the predictive control system 148, and the predictive control system 148 may estimate a demand associated with the vehicle 102 based at least in part on the planned travel path 146. For example, in situations in which the planned travel path 146 requires the vehicle 102 to traverse a portion of the road 106 having an inclined grade, the predictive control system 148 may estimate a power or other load that will be required of the power train of the vehicle 102 in order for the vehicle 102 to traverse the determined travel path 146 at a desired speed, within a desired speed range, at a desired acceleration, within a desired acceleration range, with a desired torque, with a desired range of torques, and/or within a desired period of time. Such a power, speed, acceleration, torque, and/or other demands associated with the respective vehicle systems may be estimated (e.g., predicted or projected) by the predictive control system 148 […]. Additionally or alternatively, such power, speed, acceleration, torque, and/or other demands associated with the respective vehicle systems may be estimated (e.g., predicted or projected) by the predictive control system 148 by entering velocity information, acceleration information, road grade information, lateral motion information, and/or other information associated with and/or indicative of the planned travel path 146 as inputs into one or more torque algorithms, power algorithms, and/or other demand estimation algorithms.” Finally see [Flatland, col 11, lines 40-51], which explains that the control strategy can be used to modify the state of demand and power, and further, that the demand and power can be used to modify the vehicle operation or operating parameters, “Additionally, in any of the examples described herein, control strategies of the present disclosure may be used to modify the configuration, operation, load, actions, performance, efficiency, activation, deactivation, engagement, disengagement, charging, discharging, and/or other parameters of any system of the vehicle 102 and/or components thereof. In such examples, the estimated (e.g., predicted) demand of such systems and/or components may be used to modify the operation of the vehicle 102, modify the planned travel path 146, and/or modify any of the other operating parameters described herein.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Flatland to include axle torques and states of the negative torque requestors for optimizing power dissipation. Doing so improves current systems that use a reactive control strategy, which reduces efficiency and produces unnecessary power consumption [Flatland, col 1, lines 13-22], by allowing for a predictive control strategy that uses the torque states, including states of the axle and negative torque requestor, by providing estimated negative torque demand along a path to predict power consumption [Flatland, col 1, lines 33-38] for different vehicle drive configurations [Flatland, col 1, lines 50-55], which can require different components and subcomponents of the drive system resulting in different torque demand and load [Flatland, col 2, lines 21-51].
However, Telford teaches: […] and states of […] the set of power dissipation systems. See [Telford, pg. 3, para 0065], which explains that the AIPD controller uses various parameters including the vehicle state, “FIG. 3 shows the data sets 300 used by the AI predictive drive (AIPD) suite of the SEMAS® controller 110. The AIPD suite is a high-level supervisory intelligent controller that monitors, amongst other parameters, the vehicle's current state.” See also [Telford, pg. 5, para 0084], which explains that the energy storage system has various tuning parameters, including state-of-charge and temperature, “The right-hand side table shows the tuning parameters for the energy storage system. The max and minimum SOC are expressed as a percentage of max SOC charge and discharge which have units in kW. Chmode is the SOC where the battery management system (BMS) switches from constant current to voltage driven, reducing this value when not required can extend the battery life. As with the FC parameters, this is a minimal data set and in practice additional parameters such as ESS temperatures, cooling availability and other metrics would be included.” See also [Telford, pgs. 9-10, para 0127], which further explains that the control system predicts and manages energy demand using the AIPD controller and a set of hard constraints, including maximum power change rate, soft constraints, including peak power output, and criteria, including power and torque limits, that can represent the current status or limit of the system, “The control system of the present disclosure examines the predicted energy demand profile and controls the vehicle subsystems to meet that energy demand according to preset criteria. With the proposed split in functions between the SEMAS® AIPD controller and VCU controller […]. These criteria will include both hard and soft constraints of the control system. An example of the preset criteria is the limitation on the peak power and the torque available to the driver at any point in time, […]. The VCU controller will then set the drive mode most compatible with these constraints. However, if the driver intervenes and demands more power than that predicted by the SEMAS® AIPD controller, then the VCU controller will determine which of the constraints is hard and which is soft. For example, the current maximum power change rate on the fuel cell may be a hard constraint, and the current peak power output of the ESS may be a soft constraint. The unmet peak power demand may also be a soft constraint.” Finally see [Telford, pg. 11, para 0130], which further explains that each component of the energy storage system can have constraints, including peak discharge rate, “Each component of the energy store system will have both hard and soft limits on the available energy; namely the power and the rate at which power levels can be changed. For example, the absolute peak discharge rate will be a hard limit based on the manufacturers specification. Each drive mode will then have a peak discharge rate for that mode which can be interpreted as a soft constraint. The control systems will try to adhere to the soft constraints, but these can be overridden, as needed, by an unexpected transient in the power demand. […]. The amplitude and rate of power demand may also have limitations depending on the current operating point and additional parameters such as the state of the FC humidifier, the thermal management system, and the current environmental conditions. These energy outputs are then available to drive the vehicle through the power electronics, and motor drive (PEMD). The available energy demand will also include the required energy for vehicle peripherals (e.g., cab and cargo environmental energy requirements).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Telford to determine and use the states for managing the power dissipation. Doing so allows extending the battery life [Telford, pg. 3, para 0065], while meeting demand within the limitations of the components and environmental conditions and without compromising other systems [Telford, pgs. 9-10, para 0127].
Regarding Claim 12, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Cheng further discloses: […] optimizing, by a set of optimizers of the control system, the allocation or distribution of the target power dissipation among the set of power dissipation systems based on a regenerative torque capability of a regenerative braking system of the electrified powertrain, […]. See again [Cheng, pgs. 2, para 0025-0026], which further explains a power dissipation process that includes sensing and managing dissipation to other loads and determination of a power dissipation mode, using a consumption equation, load models and lookup tables, and a calibration process. Also see again [Cheng, pg. 2 para 0024], which describes the vehicle system that includes the battery control module for controlling the battery and [Cheng, pg. 3, para 0027], which further explains that the battery control module monitors the battery parameters and state to coordinate the power dissipation process. Finally see again [Cheng, pg. 1, paras 0004 and 0006], which explain that the electric vehicle uses coast-down and regenerative braking to recover power, which are further managed based on the battery state of charge.
Cheng does not disclose: […] actual axle torques of the electrified powertrain, and states of the set of negative torque requestors and the set of power dissipation systems.
However, Flatland teaches: […] actual axle torques of the electrified powertrain, and states of the set of negative torque requestors and the set of power dissipation systems. See again [Flatland, col 2, lines 21-51], which explain that the power draw includes operations of systems that can include activating different drive motors using the vehicle axles, which contributes to a change in torque requested and available for use by the vehicle. Also see again [Flatland, col 6, lines 15-67], which describes the predictive control system and explains it is used for estimating power and load demands, including a total torque demand. Finally see again [Flatland, col 11, lines 40-51], which explains that the control strategy can be used to modify the state of demand and power, and further, that the demand and power can be used to modify the vehicle operation or operating parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention , to modify Cheng with Flatland to include axle torques and states of the negative torque requestors for optimizing power dissipation. Doing so improves current systems that use a reactive control strategy, which reduces efficiency and produces unnecessary power consumption [Flatland, col 1, lines 13-22], by allowing for a predictive control strategy that uses the torque states, including states of the axle and negative torque requestor, by providing estimated negative torque demand along a path to predict power consumption [Flatland, col 1, lines 33-38] for different vehicle drive configurations [Flatland, col 1, lines 50-55], which can require different components and subcomponents of the drive system resulting in different torque demand and load [Flatland, col 2, lines 21-51].
However, Telford teaches: […] and states of […] the set of power dissipation systems. See again [Telford, pg. 3, para 0065], which explains that the AIPD controller uses various parameters including the vehicle state. Also see again [Telford, pg. 5, para 0084], which explains that the energy storage system has various tuning parameters, including state-of-charge and temperature and [Telford, pgs. 9-10, para 0127], which further explains that the control system predicts and manages energy demand using the AIPD controller and a set of hard constraints, including maximum power change rate, soft constraints, including peak power output, and criteria, including power and torque limits, that can represent the current status or limit of the system. Finally see again [Telford, pg. 11, para 0130], which further explains that each component of the energy storage system can have constraints, including peak discharge rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Telford to determine and use the states for managing the power dissipation. Doing so allows extending the battery life [Telford, pg. 3, para 0065], while meeting demand within the limitations of the components and environmental conditions and without compromising other systems [Telford, pgs. 9-10, para 0127].
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Treharne, Flatland, and Telford, further in view of Oldridge, WO-2015/089650-A1 (herein "Oldridge").
Regarding Claim 3, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claim 2.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the set of power dissipation systems includes one or more air-cooled resistors, inefficient operation of the regenerative braking system, and a set of other high voltage components of the electrified vehicle.
However, Oldridge teaches: […] wherein the set of power dissipation systems includes one or more air-cooled resistors, inefficient operation of the regenerative braking system, and a set of other high voltage components of the electrified vehicle. See [Oldridge, para 0042], which describes FIGs. 3-4 which show the interaction of the regenerative braking system and the power management system, “Fig. 3 diagrams the operation and interactions of the regenerative braking system with the electric vehicle power management system. Fig. 4 is a graphical plot of representative road grade percentage curves for vehicle power consumption vs. vehicle mass.” See also [Oldridge, paras 0048-0050], which explain that the power management system uses various high voltage (HV) components to manage power, including brake resistors, motors, and compressors, “[0048] The Power System 108 is comprised of a Battery Management System (BMS) 46, a scaleable traction Battery Pack 48, an External Charging Control System 50 […], and a Power Distribution Box 56. […]. A DC/DC Converter 52 supplies Low Voltage Power 54 to the System Controller 12 as well as key elements of the drivetrain 110. [0049] The Drivetrain 110 includes a Brake Resistor(s) 58, Inverter(s) 60, AC Motor(s) 62, a Summation Gearbox 64, a Driveshaft 66, a Differential 68 gear hub, Driven Axle(s) 70, and Wheels 72. The System Controller 12 sends Motor Control Signals 74 to the inverters 60 to control motor 62 speeds. […]. [0050] A Chassis Electronic Control Module (ECM) 78 includes controllers for an Antilock Braking System/Anti-Slip Regulation (ABS/ASR) 80, an Electronic Brake System/Electronic Stability Control (EBS/ESC) 82, and a Generator (ICE) 84, all of which exchange data with the system controller 12 by means of a J1939 Controller Area Network (CAN) 86 bus. Vehicle Accessories (ACC) 88 include a Steering Pump 90, an Air Compressor 92, Heating 94, DC/AC Inverters 96, and HVAC - DC 98, all of which receive ACC Control Signals 100 from the System Controller 12. Also, the DC/AC Inverters 96 and HVAC DC 98 receive direct power from the Power Distribution Box 56.” Finally see [Oldridge, paras 0053 and 0061], which further explain that the power management system is used for efficient use of battery power including a recharging profile and braking, where the braking resistors are further specified as air-cooled, “[0053] A preferred embodiment of the Electric Vehicle Power Management & Driver Control System will now be described in detail. As outlined above, the primary factors affecting efficient use of battery power in full or serial hybrid electric vehicles include vehicle mass & road grade; vehicle speed & acceleration; recharging profile & braking, and use of vehicle accessories. […]. [0061] Dynamic braking is the use of the electric traction motors of a vehicle as generators when slowing. The dynamic braking is termed rheostatic if the generated electrical power is dissipated as heat in brake grid resistors, and regenerative if the power is returned to the supply line., Referring again to Figure 1, braking resistors 58 are connected to the power distribution box 56 and are activated by the system controller 12 switching solid-state control relay(s) ON or OFF during regenerative braking as shown in Figure 3, the resistors 58 are utilized when the batteries reach (X) % SOC 20, where X is a predetermined charge level of said battery pack 48. The excess kinetic energy is then dissipated into the braking resistors 58. The braking resistors 58 can be either water or air-cooled.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Oldridge to include using air-cooled braking resistors, inefficient operation of the regenerative braking system, and other HV components as power dissipation components. Doing so improves vehicle performance, which is sensitive to loads and power management [Oldridge, para 0007]. Further, electric vehicles typically have a regenerative braking system, and optimization of the usage of the braking system and regenerative braking capabilities can extend the life of the components while maximizing power conservation and consumption efficiency [Oldridge, paras 0013-0017]. Finally, utilizing the air cooled brake resistor, a feature associated with regenerative braking, further minimizes wear on the braking system by cooling the brakes to minimize overheating, helping to decrease operational costs [Oldridge, paras 0058 and 0061].
Regarding Claim 13, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 12.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the set of power dissipation systems includes one or more air-cooled resistors, inefficient operation of the regenerative braking system, and a set of other high voltage components of the electrified vehicle.
However, Oldridge teaches: […] wherein the set of power dissipation systems includes one or more air-cooled resistors, inefficient operation of the regenerative braking system, and a set of other high voltage components of the electrified vehicle. See again [Oldridge, para 0042], which describes FIGs. 3-4 which show the interaction of the regenerative braking system and the power management system. Also see again [Oldridge, paras 0048-0050], which explain that the power management system uses various high voltage (HV) components to manage power, including brake resistors, motors, and compressors. Finally see again [Oldridge, paras 0053 and 0061], which further explain that the power management system is used for efficient use of battery power including a recharging profile and braking, where the braking resistors are further specified as air-cooled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Oldridge to include using air-cooled braking resistors, inefficient operation of the regenerative braking system, and other HV components as power dissipation components. Doing so improves vehicle performance, which is sensitive to loads and power management [Oldridge, para 0007]. Further, electric vehicles typically have a regenerative braking system, and optimization of the usage of the braking system and regenerative braking capabilities can extend the life of the components while maximizing power conservation and consumption efficiency [Oldridge, paras 0013-0017]. Finally, utilizing the air cooled brake resistor, a feature associated with regenerative braking, further minimizes wear on the braking system by cooling the brakes to minimize overheating, helping to decrease operational costs [Oldridge, paras 0058 and 0061].
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Treharne, Flatland, Telford, and Oldridge, further in view of Li et al., PG Pub US-2022/0363238-A1 (herein “Li”).
Regarding Claim 4, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claim 3.
Cheng does not disclose: wherein the electrified vehicle is a range-extended electrified vehicle (REEV) and the set of power dissipation systems includes an internal combustion engine of the electrified powertrain.
However, Li teaches: […] wherein the electrified vehicle is a range-extended electrified vehicle (REEV) and the set of power dissipation systems includes an internal combustion engine of the electrified powertrain. See [Li, pg. 3, paras 0024-0026], which explains that an electric vehicle can also be a hybrid with a range extender, which can be an internal combustion engine, with different power modes for propulsion or battery charging, including a range extended mode, “As shown in FIG. 1, a hybrid powertrain 100 with a parallel hybrid architecture typically has an engine 102 powered by fuel such as gasoline or diesel engine and an electric motor 104 controlled by a power electronics (PE) module 106 and powered by a battery 108. A powertrain control module (PCM) 110 controls the operation of the engine 102, the PE module 206, the battery 108, and an automated manual transmission (AMT) 116. […]. Other configurations of the parallel hybrid architecture are also applicable. The engine 102 can be any suitable fuel-powered engine such as an internal combustion engine (ICE), whereas the types of engine include petrol engines, diesel engines, gas turbines, and so on. […]. Furthermore, the engine 104 can be an auxiliary power unit such as a range extender which charges the battery 108 when the battery is depleted. The range extender may be any one or more of: diesel genset, gasoline genset, natural gas genset, fuel cell, etc. [0025] The layout of the hybrid powertrain 100 is that of a Full Hybrid Electric Vehicle (FHEV) architecture which enables different hybrid modes to drive the vehicle. For example, in an electric only mode, […] the battery 108 provides the energy to power the electric motor 104. Therefore, electrical energy flows from the battery 108 to the electric motor 104, and mechanical energy flows from the motor 104 to the drive shaft 118. In a hybrid/electric assist mode, […] both the engine 102 and the electric motor 104 provide power to the AMT 116. Therefore, mechanical energy flows from the engine 102 to the electric motor 104 and then to the drive shaft, and electrical energy flows from the battery 108 to the electric motor 104 after which it is converted to mechanical energy which then flows to the drive shaft 118. In a battery charging mode, […] the engine 102 provides all the power to the AMT 116 while also providing mechanical energy to the electric motor 104 to enable the motor 104 to convert the mechanical energy to electrical energy, which is then stored in the battery 108. Therefore, mechanical energy flows from the engine 102 to the electric motor 104, after which the mechanical energy is directed to the drive shaft 118 and the electrical energy is directed to the battery 108. Lastly, in a regenerative braking mode, […] no power is provided to the AMT 116 from either of the engine 102 and the motor 104, so the vehicle will eventually come to a stop. While the vehicle is in motion, the mechanical energy from the drive shaft 118 are converted to electrical energy by the electric motor 104, after which the electrical energy is stored in the battery 108. Therefore, mechanical energy flows from the drive shaft 118 to the electric motor 104, and the electrical energy flows from the motor 104 to the battery 108. [0026] […]. For example, hybrid powertrains can have parallel, series, and mixed series/parallel designs, all of which are collectively known as “power split architecture”. In a parallel design as well as a mixed series/parallel designs, the internal combustion engine charges the battery and is also mechanically connected to the wheels of the vehicle to provide tractive power. In a series design, the internal combustion engine is solely used for the purpose of powering the battery or the electric drive motor by driving the generator to generate power. In another example, a four-mode hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) includes an internal combustion engine and two motors to provide four modes of operation: (1) the electric vehicle (EV) mode, (2) the range extended (RE) mode, (3) the hybrid mode, and (4) the engine mode. Different modes have different properties, and the four-mode HEV has the advantage of adjusting these modes to suit different situations.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Li to include a range extended electric vehicle with an internal combustion engine as a component of the power dissipation system. Doing so allows for a charge profile and power split that improves fuel economy, performance [Li, pg. 1, paras 0003-0004], and emissions, including by managing aftertreatment systems [Li, pg. 4, paras 0029-0031], especially for cold starts and cold weather by using a range extender for the after treatment systems [Li, pgs. 6-6 para 0041].
Regarding Claim 14, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 13.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the electrified vehicle is a range-extended electrified vehicle (REEV) and the set of power dissipation systems includes an internal combustion engine of the electrified powertrain.
However, Li teaches: […] wherein the electrified vehicle is a range-extended electrified vehicle (REEV) and the set of power dissipation systems includes an internal combustion engine of the electrified powertrain. See again [Li, pg. 3, paras 0024-0026], which explains that an electric vehicle can also be a hybrid with a range extender, which can be an internal combustion engine, with different power modes for propulsion or battery charging, including a range extended mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Li to include a range extended electric vehicle with an internal combustion engine as a component of the power dissipation system. Doing so allows for a charge profile and power split that improves fuel economy, performance [Li, pg. 1, paras 0003-0004], and emissions, including by managing aftertreatment systems [Li, pg. 4, paras 0029-0031], especially for cold starts and cold weather by using a range extender for the after treatment systems [Li, pgs. 6-6 para 0041].
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Treharne, Flatland, Telford, Oldridge, and Li, further in view of Loveall et al., PG Pub US-2023/0373316-A1 (herein "Loveall").
Regarding Claim 5, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claim 4.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the engine takes priority over the remainder of the set of power dissipation systems for allocation/distribution of the target power dissipation, and wherein the engine is configured to be motored by other components of the electrified powertrain and cause power dissipation via engine pumping losses.
However, Li teaches: […] wherein the engine takes priority over the remainder of the set of power dissipation systems for allocation/distribution of the target power dissipation […]. See [Li, pg. 3, paras 0024-0026], which explains that an electric vehicle can also be a hybrid with a range extender, which can be an internal combustion engine, with different power modes for propulsion or battery charging, including a range extended mode and a regenerative braking mode for maximizing energy storage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Li to include a range extended electric vehicle with an internal combustion engine as a component of the power dissipation system. Doing so allows for a charge profile and power split that improves fuel economy, performance [Li, pg. 1, paras 0003-0004], and emissions, including by managing aftertreatment systems [Li, pg. 4, paras 0029-0031], especially for cold starts and cold weather by using a range extender for the after treatment systems [Li, pgs. 6-6 para 0041].
However, Loveall teaches: [...] wherein the engine is configured to be motored by other components of the electrified powertrain and cause power dissipation via engine pumping losses. See [Loveall, pg. 2, paras 0019-0020], which explain that the drive consists of a motor and an engine, where the engine is started using the motor and using an inverter to transfer power from the energy storage device and the engine starting, “[0019] In this example, driveline 100 may be powered by engine 10 and electric machine 140. In other examples, engine 10 may be omitted. Engine 10 may be started with an engine starting system shown in FIG. 1 or via electric machine 140 also known as an integrated starter/generator (ISG). Further, power of engine 10 may be adjusted via power actuator 104, such as a fuel injector, throttle, etc. [0020] Driveline 100 is shown to include an electric energy storage device 162. Electric energy storage device 162 may output a higher voltage (e.g., 48 volts) than electric energy storage device 163 (e.g., 12 volts). DC/DC converter 145 may allow exchange of electrical energy between high voltage bus 191 and low voltage bus 192. High voltage bus 191 is electrically coupled to higher voltage electric energy storage device 162. Low voltage bus 192 is electrically coupled to lower voltage electric energy storage device 163 and sensors/actuators/accessories 179. […]. Inverter 147 converts DC power to AC power and vice-versa to enable power to be transferred between electric machine 140 and electric energy storage device 162.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Loveall to use the engine motoring of a range extended vehicle for power dissipation. Doing so provides an extra loss during vehicle operation which allows for storage of more energy through regenerative braking [Loveall, Abstract], where the peak operation accounts for balancing losses to allow for more regenerative braking [Loveall, pg. 1, para 0015].
Regarding Claim 15, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 14.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the engine takes priority over the remainder of the set of power dissipation systems for allocation/ distribution of the target power dissipation, and wherein the engine is configured to be motored by other components of the electrified powertrain and cause power dissipation via engine pumping losses.
However, Li teaches: […] wherein the engine takes priority over the remainder of the set of power dissipation systems for allocation/ distribution of the target power dissipation […]. See again [Li, pg. 3, paras 0024-0026], which explains that an electric vehicle can also be a hybrid with a range extender, which can be an internal combustion engine, with different power modes for propulsion or battery charging, including a range extended mode and a regenerative braking mode for maximizing energy storage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Li to include a range extended electric vehicle with an internal combustion engine as a component of the power dissipation system. Doing so allows for a charge profile and power split that improves fuel economy, performance [Li, pg. 1, paras 0003-0004], and emissions, including by managing aftertreatment systems [Li, pg. 4, paras 0029-0031], especially for cold starts and cold weather by using a range extender for the after treatment systems [Li, pgs. 6-6 para 0041].
However, Loveall teaches: […] wherein the engine is configured to be motored by other components of the electrified powertrain and cause power dissipation via engine pumping losses. See again [Loveall, pg. 2, paras 0019-0020], which explain that the drive consists of a motor and an engine, where the engine is started using the motor and using an inverter to transfer power from the energy storage device and the engine starting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Loveall to use the engine motoring of a range extended vehicle for power dissipation. Doing so provides an extra loss during vehicle operation which allows for storage of more energy through regenerative braking [Loveall, Abstract], where the peak operation accounts for balancing losses to allow for more regenerative braking [Loveall, pg. 1, para 0015].
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Treharne, further in view of Telford.
Regarding Claim 7, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claim 6.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the set of operating parameters includes a grade of a road that the electrified vehicle is on, a state of charge (SOC) of a high voltage battery system configured to supply electrical energy to at least one electric motor of the electrified powertrain, and a temperature of the friction brake system.
However, Telford teaches: […] wherein the set of operating parameters includes a grade of a road that the electrified vehicle is on, a state of charge (SOC) of a high voltage battery system configured to supply electrical energy to at least one electric motor of the electrified powertrain, and a temperature of the friction brake system. See [Telford, pg. 3, para 0065], which explains that the AIPD controller uses various parameters including the vehicle state, “FIG. 3 shows the data sets 300 used by the AI predictive drive (AIPD) suite of the SEMAS® controller 110. The AIPD suite is a high-level supervisory intelligent controller that monitors, amongst other parameters, the vehicle's current state.” See also [Telford, pg. 5, para 0084], which explains that the energy storage system has various tuning parameters, including state-of-charge and temperature, “The right-hand side table shows the tuning parameters for the energy storage system. The max and minimum SOC are expressed as a percentage of max SOC charge and discharge which have units in kW. Chmode is the SOC where the battery management system (BMS) switches from constant current to voltage driven, reducing this value when not required can extend the battery life. As with the FC parameters, this is a minimal data set and in practice additional parameters such as ESS temperatures, cooling availability and other metrics would be included.” See also [Telford, pg. 6, para 0099], which explains the system uses state-of-charge and route gradient, such as steep up hills and descents, or deceleration events, to plan and control power management, “Secondly, the route-based AI predictive control is used to define state-of-charge set points for the ESS along the route thereby ensuring that the vehicle reaches its destination and has sufficient power for high power demanding manoeuvres, such as climbing steep gradients and has sufficient capacity for maximum power absorption into the ESS on descent or planned deacceleration events. […]. By matching performance to the demands of the terrain with current requests from the driver along with the impacts of environmental conditions, the SEMAS® AIPD controller can optimise the balance between such parameters as overall vehicle power requirements, fuel economy, regenerative energy capture, and power train component durability.” See again [Telford, pg. 8, para 0114], which explains that the AIPD controller monitors the vehicle state, including thermal management of the powertrain system, and further adjusts the energy source balance to limit dispersing heat to the brakes. Finally see [Telford, pgs. 9-10, para 0127], which further explains that the control system predicts and manages energy demand using the AIPD controller and a set of hard constraints, including maximum power change rate, soft constraints, including peak power output, and criteria, including power and torque limits, that can represent the current status or limit of the system, “The control system of the present disclosure examines the predicted energy demand profile and controls the vehicle subsystems to meet that energy demand according to preset criteria. With the proposed split in functions between the SEMAS® AIPD controller and VCU controller […]. These criteria will include both hard and soft constraints of the control system. An example of the preset criteria is the limitation on the peak power and the torque available to the driver at any point in time, […]. The VCU controller will then set the drive mode most compatible with these constraints. However, if the driver intervenes and demands more power than that predicted by the SEMAS® AIPD controller, then the VCU controller will determine which of the constraints is hard and which is soft. For example, the current maximum power change rate on the fuel cell may be a hard constraint, and the current peak power output of the ESS may be a soft constraint. The unmet peak power demand may also be a soft constraint.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Telford to use parameters such as road grade, state-of-charge, and brake temperature for managing the power dissipation. Doing so allows extending the battery life [Telford, pg. 3, para 0065], by minimizing power cycling and high transient demands [Telford, pg. 8, para 0115]. Additionally, the drive mode can be dynamically set allowing the parameters to be fined tuned, including predicting the state-of-charge using route information, such as gradients including a steep uphill with high power demand and descents for charging, which improves durability of electrochemical subsystems and optimizes the balance of vehicle power requirements, fuel economy, regenerative energy capture, and power train component durability [Telford, pg. 6, para 0099], which can include minimizing the thermal load on the system and brakes [Telford, pg. 8, para 0114].
Regarding Claim 8, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claim 7.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the electrified vehicle is a fuel cell electrified vehicle (FCEV) and the set of negative torque requestors and the one or more operating parameters each include a minimum power generation limit for the fuel cell system of the electrified powertrain.
However, Telford teaches: […] wherein the electrified vehicle is a fuel cell electrified vehicle (FCEV) and the set of negative torque requestors and the one or more operating parameters each include a minimum power generation limit for the fuel cell system of the electrified powertrain. See [Telford, pgs. 1-2, para 0018], which describes the tuning parameters of the energy storage system, which include fuel cell power limits, “Optionally, the set of tuning parameters comprises at least one or more of: a fuel cell peak power limit, a fuel cell Power up slew rate, a fuel cell power down slew rate, an ESS max State of Charge (SOC), an ESS Min SOC, a target SOC at time t, a fuel cell array target power,” and [Telford, pg. 5, para 0083], which further describes the tuning parameters that include the fuel cell maximum and minimum power output and power change limits, “The left-hand side table shows the tuning parameters for the fuel cell array. The units for the FC max/FC min power output are in kW and for the power change limits values in kW/sec. The target power and power change limits are complex and depend upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, internal temperatures, environmental temperatures, historical battery SOC and battery temperature.” See also [Telford, pg. 4, para 0076], which further explains that the vehicle dynamic model uses inputs to output the target power outputs and inputs of the cell, “ The vehicle dynamic model 510 receives a variety of inputs that can be categorised into three main groupings. The first is the driver inputs 520 which include the requested velocity profile of the vehicle and any braking events. Second, is the state estimators 530, such as the mass of the vehicle, the gradient of the terrain or the rolling resistance of the vehicle. The third group of inputs is the route gradient profile 540. The vehicle dynamic model 510 outputs a predicted energy demand profile 550 for the vehicle along a given route which in turn is used to provide the least cost energy control strategy 560. This control strategy for the vehicle presets a number of targets 570 for internal components of the power train such as the target battery state-of-charge, the target fuel cell power output and the target regeneration energy input.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Telford to include a fuel cell target power dissipation and a minimum power generation limit. Doing so improves the dynamic performance by dynamically setting the drive mode using exact tuning and set points and ensures the vehicle demand is met by balancing the unique limits of the fuel system with the route, power requirements, fuel economy, durability, and energy recapture [Telford, pg. 6, para 0099].
Regarding Claim 9, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claim 7.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the minimum power generation limit for the fuel cell system takes priority over a remainder of the set of operating parameters for determination of the target power dissipation.
However, Telford teaches: […] wherein the minimum power generation limit for the fuel cell system takes priority over a remainder of the set of operating parameters for determination of the target power dissipation. See again [Telford, pgs. 1-2, para 0018], which describes the tuning parameters of the energy storage system, which include fuel cell power limits and [Telford, pg. 5, para 0083], which further describes the tuning parameters that include the fuel cell maximum and minimum power output and power change limits. Also see again[Telford, pg. 4, para 0076], which further explains that the model uses preset number of targets for predicting the energy demand profile, including a target for the fuel cell power output and energy input, “The vehicle dynamic model 510 receives a variety of inputs that can be categorised into three main groupings. The first is the driver inputs 520 […]. Second, is the state estimators 530 […]. The third group of inputs is the route gradient profile 540. The vehicle dynamic model 510 outputs a predicted energy demand profile 550 for the vehicle along a given route which in turn is used to provide the least cost energy control strategy 560. This control strategy for the vehicle presets a number of targets 570 for internal components of the power train such as the target battery state-of-charge, the target fuel cell power output and the target regeneration energy input.” Finally, see further [Telford, FIGs. 9A-9H and pg. 5, paras 0082-0088], which show utilizing the fuel cell power output and change limits as the primary tuning parameter for management of the energy storage system, and specifically usage of a lead and follower cell configuration used to manage a minimum power output, “[0082] FIG. 9A is a table showing an example set of tuning parameters that can be used by the energy balance module 430 of FIG. 4. The example set shown in FIG. 9A is a simple set of tuning parameters that could be used, in other embodiments more complex and extensive sets of tuning parameters could be used. [0083] The left-hand side table shows the tuning parameters for the fuel cell array. The units for the FC max/FC min power output are in kW and for the power change limits values in kW/sec. […]. [0084] The right-hand side table shows the tuning parameters for the energy storage system. The max and minimum SOC are expressed as a percentage of max SOC charge and discharge which have units in kW. […]. [0085] FIG. 9B shows the FC array lead/follower configuration for the start-up mode of the vehicle. In start-up mode, the lead fuel cell module is started at low power and the follower fuel cell module is delayed until the power output of the lead reaches 60 kW, for example. For example, for low-speed manoeuvres or for ESS recharge, when stationary the power demand is less than the lead fuel cell so only that fuel cell is in operation. [0086] FIG. 9C shows the FC array lead/follower configuration for the normal operational mode of the vehicle. During normal operation, the lead and follower fuel cell modules mirror each other except at low power output. For example, at low power output, the follower fuel cell module shuts down first leaving the lead fuel cell to handle the low power demands.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Telford to include prioritizing a fuel cell minimum power generation limit. Doing so improves the dynamic performance by dynamically setting the drive mode using exact tuning and set points and ensures the vehicle demand is met by balancing the unique limits of the fuel system with the route, power requirements, fuel economy, durability, and energy recapture [Telford, pg. 6, para 0099]. Further, this allows for configuring the fuel cell array so that the lead and follower cells are properly utilized to provide greater efficiency [Telford, pg. 5, paras 00086 and 0088].
Regarding Claim 17, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 16.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the set of operating parameters includes a grade of a road that the electrified vehicle is on, a state of charge (SOC) of a high voltage battery system configured to supply electrical energy to at least one electric motor of the electrified powertrain, and a temperature of the friction brake system.
However, Telford teaches: […] wherein the set of operating parameters includes a grade of a road that the electrified vehicle is on, a state of charge (SOC) of a high voltage battery system configured to supply electrical energy to at least one electric motor of the electrified powertrain, and a temperature of the friction brake system. See again [Telford, pg. 3, para 0065], which explains that the AIPD controller uses various parameters including the vehicle state. Also see again [Telford, pg. 5, para 0084], which explains that the energy storage system has various tuning parameters, including state-of-charge and temperature and [Telford, pg. 6, para 0099], which explains the system uses state-of-charge and route gradient, such as steep up hills and descents, or deceleration events, to plan and control power management. Also see again [Telford, pg. 8, para 0114], which explains that the AIPD controller monitors the vehicle state, including thermal management of the powertrain system, and further adjusts the energy source balance to limit dispersing heat to the brakes. Finally see again [Telford, pgs. 9-10, para 0127], which further explains that the control system predicts and manages energy demand using the AIPD controller and a set of hard constraints, including maximum power change rate, soft constraints.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Telford to use parameters such as road grade, state-of-charge, and brake temperature for managing the power dissipation. Doing so allows extending the battery life [Telford, pg. 3, para 0065], by minimizing power cycling and high transient demands [Telford, pg. 8, para 0115]. Additionally, the drive mode can be dynamically set allowing the parameters to be fined tuned, including predicting the state-of-charge using route information, such as gradients including a steep uphill with high power demand and descents for charging, which improves durability of electrochemical subsystems and optimizes the balance of vehicle power requirements, fuel economy, regenerative energy capture, and power train component durability [Telford, pg. 6, para 0099], which can include minimizing the thermal load on the system and brakes [Telford, pg. 8, para 0114].
Regarding Claim 18, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 17.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the electrified vehicle is a fuel cell electrified vehicle (FCEV) and the set of negative torque requestors and the one or more operating parameters each include a minimum power generation limit for the fuel cell system of the electrified powertrain.
However, Telford teaches: […] wherein the electrified vehicle is a fuel cell electrified vehicle (FCEV) and the set of negative torque requestors and the one or more operating parameters each include a minimum power generation limit for the fuel cell system of the electrified powertrain. See again [Telford, pgs. 1-2, para 0018], which describes the tuning parameters of the energy storage system, which include fuel cell power limits and [Telford, pg. 5, para 0083], which further describes the tuning parameters that include the fuel cell maximum and minimum power output and power change limits. Also see again [Telford, pg. 4, para 0076], which further explains that the vehicle dynamic model uses inputs to output the target power outputs and inputs of the cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Telford to include a fuel cell target power dissipation and a minimum power generation limit. Doing so improves the dynamic performance by dynamically setting the drive mode using exact tuning and set points and ensures the vehicle demand is met by balancing the unique limits of the fuel system with the route, power requirements, fuel economy, durability, and energy recapture [Telford, pg. 6, para 0099].
Regarding Claim 19, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 17.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the minimum power generation limit for the fuel cell system takes priority over a remainder of the set of operating parameters for determination of the target power dissipation.
However, Telford teaches: […] wherein the minimum power generation limit for the fuel cell system takes priority over a remainder of the set of operating parameters for determination of the target power dissipation. See again [Telford, pgs. 1-2, para 0018], which describes the tuning parameters of the energy storage system, which include fuel cell power limits and [Telford, pg. 5, para 0083], which further describes the tuning parameters that include the fuel cell maximum and minimum power output and power change limits. Also see again[Telford, pg. 4, para 0076], which further explains that the model uses preset number of targets for predicting the energy demand profile, including a target for the fuel cell power output and energy input. Finally, see again [Telford, FIGs. 9A-9H and pg. 5, paras 0082-0088], which show utilizing the fuel cell power output and change limits as the primary tuning parameter for management of the energy storage system, and specifically usage of a lead and follower cell configuration used to manage a minimum power output.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Telford to include prioritizing a fuel cell minimum power generation limit. Doing so improves the dynamic performance by dynamically setting the drive mode using exact tuning and set points and ensures the vehicle demand is met by balancing the unique limits of the fuel system with the route, power requirements, fuel economy, durability, and energy recapture [Telford, pg. 6, para 0099]. Further, this allows for configuring the fuel cell array so that the lead and follower cells are properly utilized to provide greater efficiency [Telford, pg. 5, paras 00086 and 0088].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Treharne and Li.
Regarding Claim 10, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Cheng does not disclose: […] wherein the control system is further configured to receive a manual request by a driver or operator of the electrified vehicle to enable the power dissipation mode, and wherein the manual request takes priority over other factors for the automated enablement/disablement of the power dissipation mode.
However, Li teaches: […] wherein the control system is further configured to receive a manual request by a driver or operator of the electrified vehicle to enable the power dissipation mode, and wherein the manual request takes priority over other factors for the automated enablement/disablement of the power dissipation mode. See [Li, pg. 1, para 0005 and pg. 2, para 0012], which explain that an optimizer module, for determining the power management strategy, receives operator information as input for power management, which can include operator requests, “[0005] In one embodiment, a drive system of a hybrid vehicle is provided which includes an engine, an electric motor with an energy storage device electrically coupled thereto, a powertrain operatively coupled to the engine and the electric motor, an optimizer module operatively coupled to the powertrain. The optimizer module configured to receive from a remote management module an operator information to travel a route, receive current route information for the route from a mapping application in response to the operator information, measure current vehicle status information for the hybrid vehicle, and decide a power management strategy for the vehicle based on the current route information and the current vehicle status information. […]. [0012] In one embodiment, the power management strategy is decided by the optimizer module using online learning from historical and lookahead data. […]. In one embodiment, the current route information is included as part of the operator information. In one embodiment, the operator information further includes operator request information.” See also [Li, pg. 4, para 0031], which explains that the operator request can be a request for enabling a specific power management strategy, “In some examples, the operator requests include fleet performance preference, which is based on whether the operator wants to adjust the powertrain system operation to optimize vehicle performance, efficiency, emission reduction, component life, or a balanced performance among any of these factors. In some examples, the operator requests enable one or more range extender to charge the battery of the vehicle to a specified state of charge, or the powertrain to target a specified state of charge at the end of a mission.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Li to include an operator request for enabling a power management strategy. Doing so allows for the operator to control the performance, fuel economy, or charge at the end of a trip, which is especially useful for managing fleets of vehicles to balance performance with component life, where fleets regularly use planned routes [Li, pg. 4, paras 0030-0031].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Treharne, Telford, and Li.
Regarding Claim 20, Cheng as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 19.
Cheng does not disclose: […] receiving, by the control system, a manual request by a driver or operator of the electrified vehicle to enable the power dissipation mode, wherein the manual request takes priority over other factors for the automated enablement/disablement of the power dissipation mode.
However, Li teaches: […] receiving, by the control system, a manual request by a driver or operator of the electrified vehicle to enable the power dissipation mode, wherein the manual request takes priority over other factors for the automated enablement/disablement of the power dissipation mode. See again [Li, pg. 1, para 0005 and pg. 2, para 0012], which explain that an optimizer module, for determining the power management strategy, receives operator information as input for power management, which can include operator requests. Also see again [Li, pg. 4, para 0031], which explains that the operator request can be a request for enabling a specific power management strategy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cheng with Li to include an operator request for enabling a power management strategy. Doing so allows for the operator to control the performance, fuel economy, or charge at the end of a trip, which is especially useful for managing fleets of vehicles to balance performance with component life, where fleets regularly use planned routes [Li, pg. 4, paras 0030-0031].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN MARIE HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5309. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664