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 Interpretation
A memory is known in the art for storing parameters, profiles and instructions for execution in controlling a system or a load. Thus, for purposes of examination, the independent claims, namely claims 1, 9 and 17 would be treated as functional limitations executed by a processor based on stored instructions or an instruction or software parameters leading to the claimed functionalities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2024/0243371) in view of Arisetty et al. (US 2023/0361591).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches in (see figs. and figs, of related provisional applications) wherein a controller or processor in (see fig. 5, for instance) can perform battery management such as charging or discharging of a battery system such as shown in (see fig. 9C) wherein fast charging of a battery can be performed in (see para 0061, 0062). Furthermore, according to (see para 0050), the controller can control battery management using artificial intelligence to optimize battery charging decisions.
According to in (see para 0064 and fig. 12) that a selective charging of a portion of the cells can be performed. Thus, the ability to fast charge using fast cells can be made possible based on the teaching without having to charge slow charging cells in (see para 0061) wherein a battery system could include fast charging and slow charging cells.
Kim fails to teach explicitly fast charging a portion of the battery cells with fast charging capabilities and normal charging capabilities on the remainder, even though the claim can be read broadly to read as requiring exclusively fast charging a portion of the cells (fast cells) and ignoring the others. A second option could include fast charging the fast cells and slow charging the normal cells.
Arisetty et al. teaches a battery system in (see figs. 2-3) wherein a portion of a battery cell region could be fast charged as fast cells and the other portion would or could require regular or slow charging in (see para 0015-0020, 0046, 0054, 0057-0064, see table shown in page 4). The option to fast charge fast cells and slow charge slow cells is explicitly shown in (see Table of para 0056, 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Arisetty into the teaching of Kim thus making it possible to maintain operation of running or critical loads without having to spend a long duration of time charging the entire battery thus saving time.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches accessing in (see fig. 5, para 0047, 0048), by a device can be read as a memory and other components (see para 0046-0050) operatively coupled to a processor, an instruction to perform fast charging on a battery of a vehicle in (see para 0061, fig. 9C);
determining, by the device, in response to the instruction, and via execution of a machine learning model on a context of the vehicle, a region of the battery to allocate for fast charging (see para 0050, 0061, 0062); and
performing, by the device, fast charging on the determined region of the battery and normal charging or no charging on a remainder of the battery (para 0061, 0064 and fig. 12). Thus, the ability of being able to fast charge cells using cells associated with fast charging can be made possible based on the teaching without having to charge slow charging cells wherein a battery system could include fast charging and slow charging cells.
Kim fails to teach explicitly fast charging a portion of the battery cells with fast charging capabilities and normal charging capabilities on the remainder, even though the claim can be read broadly to read as requiring exclusively fast charging a portion of the cells (fast cells) and ignoring the others. A second option could include fast charging the fast cells and slow charging the normal cells.
Arisetty et al. teaches a battery system in (see figs. 2-3) wherein a portion of a battery cell region could be fast charged as fast cells and the other portion would or could require regular or slow charging in (see para 0015-0020, 0046, 0054, 0057-0064, see table shown in page 4). The option to fast charge fast cells and slow charge slow cells is explicitly shown in (see Table of para 0056, 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Arisetty into the teaching of Kim thus making it possible to maintain operation of running loads without having to spend a long duration of time trying to charge the entire battery thus saving time.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a computer program in (see figs. 5, 9C and 12) directed to a battery management system, charger and a chart, product for facilitating adaptive fast charging of vehicular batteries, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable memory having program instructions embodied therewith, wherein the program instructions are executable by a processor, and wherein execution of the program instructions causes the processor to in (see para 0047-0050):
access an instruction to perform fast charging on a battery of a vehicle in (see para 0061);
determine, in response to the instruction and via execution of a machine learning model on a context of the vehicle, a region of the battery to allocate for fast charging; in (see para 0050, 0064) and
perform fast charging on the determined region of the battery and normal charging or no charging on a remainder of the battery in (para 0064, fig. 12).
Thus, the ability of being able to fast charge cells using cells associated with fast charging can be made possible based on the teaching without having to charge slow charging cells in (see para 0061) wherein a battery system could include fast charging and slow charging cells.
Kim fails to teach explicitly fast charging a portion of the battery cells with fast charging capabilities and normal charging capabilities on the remainder, even though the claim can be read broadly to read as requiring exclusively fast charging a portion of the cells (fast cells) and ignoring the others. A second option could include fast charging the fast cells and slow charging the normal cells.
Arisetty et al. teaches a battery system in (see figs. 2-3) wherein a portion of a battery cell region could be fast charged as fast cells and the other portion would or could require regular or slow charging in (see para 0015-0020, 0046, 0054, 0057-0064, see table shown in page 4). The option to fast charge fast cells and slow charge slow cells is explicitly shown in (see Table of para 0056, 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Arisetty into the teaching of Kim thus making it possible to maintain operation of running loads without having to spend a long duration of time trying to charge the entire battery thus saving time.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, The combination including wherein the context of the vehicle comprises current health data of the battery in (see para 0044-0050 of Kim).
Claim(s) 3-5, 11-13 and 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2024/0243371) in view of Arisetty et al. (US 2023/0361591) and further in view of Sarkar et al. (US 2013/0229153, prior art cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 3-5, 11-13 and 19, The combination fails to teach considering fast charging based on factors or parameters such as wherein the context of the vehicle comprises a driving history of the vehicle, a currently planned destination or route of the vehicle and a current weather forecast associated with the currently planned destination or route.
Sarkar teaches rapid battery charging with a plurality of battery cells wherein factors or parameters including routes, weather and historical data :historical usage” can be factored in determining how to fast charge a vehicle in (see para 0061, 0097, 0100, 0101 and 0107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sarkar into the combination thus making it possible to charge a battery with the right amount of power needed to complete a route based on historical data, determine duration of a trip for charging purposes and with a data processor with intelligent capabilities.
Claim(s) 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2024/0243371) in view of Arisetty et al. (US 2023/0361591) and further in view of Dangier et al. (US 2014/0121866).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, The combination fails to teach considering fast charging based on factors or parameters such as wherein the context of the vehicle comprises a driving history of the vehicle, a currently planned destination or route of the vehicle and a current weather forecast associated with the currently planned destination or route.
Dangier teaches a fast charge mode for extended trip wherein factors such as a route, (Para 0029, --36, 0037, 0047, 0048), route parameters can be used in determining fast charging parameters or options.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Dangier into that of the combination thus making to determine the needed amount of power required to complete a trip and to charge the battery with the minimum power needed in a timely manner to complete a trip.
Claim(s) 6, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2024/0243371) in view of Arisetty et al. (US 2023/0361591) and further in view of Tuukkanen (US 2023/0382256)
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 19, The combination fails to wherein the context of the vehicle comprises an upcoming event noted in an electronic calendar of the vehicle.
Tuukkanen teaches an EV in (see fig. 1) wherein an application module (121) which is a part of a user interface in (see para 0033, 0034, 0039-0041, 0045, 0049, 0051, 0097, 0102) can store a calendar used in determining charging parameters and furthermore, forecast weather parameters can be used in determining how a battery is to be charged. Charging time windows can also be determined for planned trips (Para 0052, 0081, 0085, 0090).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tuukkanen into the combination thus making it possible to effective charge batteries based on needs and to enhance the efficiency of the battery without degradation by considering environmental conditions.
Claim(s) 7, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2024/0243371) in view of Arisetty et al. (US 2023/0361591) and further in view of Ohn et al. (US 2024/0010085).
Regarding claim 7, 15 and 18, The combination including Kim fails to teach wherein the context of the vehicle comprises a current weight of the vehicle, current tire pressures of the vehicle, or current thermal fluid temperatures of the vehicle.
Ohn teaches a method for controlling the charging and discharging of a battery wherein factors such as movement pattern, state of charge of a battery, weather, location, weight and so forth can be used in determining how to charge a battery by using a system shown in (see fig. 9, para 0055-0062) in determining how to charge a battery which can include rapid or slow charging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Ohn into that of the combination thus making it possible to make charging decision based on the state of battery and parameters analyzed by the controller or processor of the vehicle such as weight usually associated with heavy or critical loads which would require more urgent power and in deciding what the best option could be either slow charging if urgency is not that important or rapid charging based on trip characteristics, vehicle characteristics, provide power to critical loads and time factors.
Claim(s) 8, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2024/0243371) in view of Arisetty et al. (US 2023/0361591) and further in view of Stewart (US 2021/011446).
Regarding claims 8, 16 and 20, The combination teaches a plurality of battery cells with different capabilities in a different region/area of the battery in (see para 0058, 0035 of Kim, fig. 3 of Arisetty et al., Table 1 of para 0046, 0054, 0058, para 0059) with ideal degradation (see Kim at para 0049). Note that the combination teaches for instance the ability to apply fast charging to the battery cells with different capabilities that is slow and fast charging cells as shown in (mode 1 of Arisetty). Note that for instance fast charging can be applied strictly to fast charging cell regions or cells in (see Mode 2 of Arisetty).
The combination, however, fails to teach generating an alert for the fast charging of all battery cells which in light of the combination applied would include slow charging cells.
Stewart teaches a battery cell structure wherein an alert can be sent to a user in the process of trying to fast charge battery cells in (see para 0017, 0024, 0078, 0079). Note all the battery cells of the battery can be fast charged.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Stewart into that of the combination to generate alerts when fast charging or in the process of trying to fast charge batteries (battery cells) to allow a user to authorize fast charging based on urgency such as trip characteristics or criticality of operating loads. (see para 0036, 0043 of Fritz et al., US 2021/0336464, even though not applied teaches an alert can be given during a fast charging mode and normal charging can be applied when needed, para 0031, 0036 of Fritz in different environments).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rex Barnie whose telephone number is (571)272-7492. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-6PM
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.
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.
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights