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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 -2, 8-12, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallia et al. (US 2023/0106702) in view of Iisaka (US 2016/0172897), hereinafter Iisaka.
As to claims 1.11 and 16, Mallia discloses in figure 7, a charging control system, comprising:
a controller configured to: receive from a battery management system of a battery pack prior to initiation of charging of the battery pack by the charging unit, charging information relating to the battery pack [steps 502; receiving indication of battery threshold; see ¶0166];
identify, in accordance with a comparison of the charging information to charging guidelines, whether charging the battery pack is to comply with the charging guidelines [see steps 506; checking if the charge level of the battery above minimum charge threshold before the charge restriction event; see ¶0175 ];
output, responsive to identifying that charging the battery pack is to violate the charging guidelines [see steps (510); see ¶017833], a request for an operator input to indicate whether charging the battery pack is to be initiated [see steps (712) asking override from the user; see ¶00063]; and cause initiation of charging of the battery pack responsive to the operator input indicating that charging is to be initiated [see steps 510-714; charging adverse time is considered as one of charging guidelines where charging is not recommended or not desirable, see ¶0168].
Mallia does not disclose explicitly, contactors configured to control current flow in a charging unit.
Isaka discloses in figure 1, contactors [switching (182)] configured to control current flow in a charging unit [see ¶0044-0045].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify switching contacts of Mallia and contactors such as user operable switching device as taught by Iisaka in order to improve safety during vehicle charging.
As to Claim 2, Mallia discloses in figure 1, wherein the charging information indicates a state of charge of the battery pack [see figure 7, steps (506)].
As to claim 8, Mallia in combination with Iisaka discloses, wherein the controller, to cause initiation of charging of the battery pack, is configured to: cause the contactors to close [noted that in order to initiate charging process the current must flow and the charging close loop should be created by closing the charging contactors in Mallia; Iisaka discloses user control switching means to close and open the charging path ; see ¶0044-0045 ].
As to claim 9, Mallia discloses in figure 7, wherein the controller is further configured to: cause restriction of charging of the battery pack responsive to the operator input indicating that charging of the battery pack is not to be initiated [it is implicit that the override input is not received then charging is not started]
As to claim 10, Iisaka discloses in figures 1-3 , wherein the controller, to cause restriction of charging of the battery pack, is configured to: cause the contactors to remain open [see ¶0044-0045].
As to claim 12, Mallia discloses in figure 7, wherein the charging guidelines indicate one or more of: a minimum state of charge for charging the battery pack [see figure 7, see steps (502)] a maximum state of charge for charging the battery pack, or a frequency between charging of the battery pack.
As to claim 17, Mallia discloses in figure 7, wherein the controller is further configured to: output, responsive to identifying that charging the battery pack is to violate the charging guidelines, an indication that charging the battery pack is to violate the charging guidelines [see figure 7, see ¶712].
As to claim 18, Mallia discloses in figure 7, wherein the controller is further configured to: cause initiation of charging of the battery pack responsive to identifying that charging the battery pack is to comply with the charging guidelines [see figure 7].
As to claim 20, Mallia discloses in figure 7, further comprising: a cable configured to electrically connect the battery pack to the charging unit [see figure 16].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallia in view of Iisaka, in view of Takegata et al. (US 2024/0239225), hereinafter Takegata.
As to claim 3, Mallia discloses all of the claim limitations except wherein the controller, to receive the charging information, is configured to receive the charging information and an identifier of the battery pack.
Takegata discloses in figure 2, wherein the controller, to receive the charging information, is configured to receive the charging information and an identifier of the battery pack [see ¶0053-0054].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to allow the controller or Mallia to collect battery ID and battery SOC as taught by Takegata in order to effectively control battery charging.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallia in view of Iisaka, in view of Takegata, in view of Lu et al. (US 2013/0214730), Lu.
As to claim 4, Mallia discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the controller is further configured to: retrieve, using the identifier of the battery pack, historical charging information relating to the battery pack; and output information indicating whether the historical charging information complies with the charging guidelines.
Lu discloses in figure 6, using the identifier of the battery pack, historical charging information relating to the battery pack; and output information indicating whether the historical charging information complies with the charging guidelines [see ¶0150 and figure 6, steps ¶600-0609].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use historical charging data in Mallia’s apparatus in order to optimize charge discharge cycles.
As to claim 5, Lu discloses in figure 6, wherein the controller is further configured to: identify, in accordance with the identifier of the battery pack, whether historical charging information relating to the battery pack is available, wherein the comparison of the charging information to the charging guidelines is responsive to the historical charging information being available [the remaining charging time and the energy consumed since the start of charging].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For Claim 6 : primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the controller is further configured to: output, responsive to the operator input indicating that charging of the battery pack is to be initiated, information indicating a battery life prediction for the battery pack to result from charging the battery pack in violation of the charging guidelines.
For Claim 13: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: outputting, responsive to the operator input indicating that charging of the battery pack is not to be initiated, information indicating: a recommendation of a state of charge of the battery pack at which to perform charging of the battery pack or a frequency between chargings of the battery pack that is to be used, and a battery life prediction for the battery pack to result from charging the battery pack in in accordance with the recommendation.
For Claim 14: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: outputting, responsive to the operator input indicating that charging of the battery pack is to be initiated, information indicating a battery life prediction for the battery pack to result from charging the battery pack in violation of the charging guidelines.
For Claim 15: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: outputting an additional request for an additional operator input to indicate whether charging of the battery pack is to be initiated, wherein causing initiation of charging of the battery pack is responsive to the operator input and the additional operator input indicating that charging is to be initiated.
For Claim 19: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the controller is further configured to: output, responsive to the operator input indicating that charging of the battery pack is to be initiated, information indicating a battery life prediction for the battery pack to result from charging the battery pack in violation of the charging guidelines; and output an additional request for an additional operator input to indicate whether charging of the battery pack is to be initiated, wherein the controller is configured to cause initiation of charging of the battery pack responsive to the operator input and the additional operator input indicating that charging is to be initiated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tippelhofer et al. (US 2013/0204456) discloses electric vehicle travelling and charging of the electrical vehicle
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights