Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
¶[0008] recites "transmit ad receive." Replace "ad" with "and."
¶[0014] states that inverter 24 drives motor 23, whereas ¶[0016] and Fig. 1 identify the motor as motor 22. "motor 23" should be amended to "motor 22" unless a different component was intended.
The final sentence of ¶[0023] is grammatically incomplete: "...before starting external charging. is preferable."
¶[0024] is inconsistent with FIG. 3. The figure identifies the relevant times as t11, t12, t13, and t14, but the embodiment refers them as t1 and t2.
¶[0024] recites "outer charging" and "target ration SOCtg." Those phrases should be amended to "external charging" and "target ratio SOCtg," respectively.
¶s[0030]-[0031] refer to a "section" or "column of means for solving the problem," but no section having that title appears in the specification.
¶[0032] ends with the sentence fragment "Of course" which should be incorporated into the preceding sentence with its intended meaning.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 4 are 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 2 recites "the charging start time is set to be late as the scheduled charging power is large". "Late" supplies no comparison time or reference point, and "as ... is large" reasonably may mean either (i) charging is delayed when power exceeds an unstated threshold or (ii) charging is set progressively later as charging power increases. The examiner is interpreting the second meaning after reading the disclosure found in ¶s[0026].
Claim 4 recites "a history for a predetermined period" which is unclear. ¶[0018] discusses both the history of past driving-start times and historical facility power consumption. It is therefore unclear whether the claimed predicted power consumption is estimated from historical power consumption, historical travel times, or another historical quantity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over Ichishi (US 20100217485 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Ichishi discloses the following:
A vehicle management device that is used in an electrified vehicle equipped with a power storage device (Fig. 1 – charging control device 400, electric vehicle 100 and 150 with batteries; ¶s[32-34]);
when the electrified vehicle is able to transmit and receive power to and from a predetermined facility (¶[45] discloses power is supplied and received between a second motor generator 206 and a first motor generator 228 and outside);
sets a charging start time for external charging for charging the power storage device using power from the predetermined facility, based on a next scheduled travel start time or a set time (Fig. 3 – S22; ¶s[53-58, 86-91] disclose that the vehicle transmits a record of boarding and alighting or a scheduled boarding time to charging control device 400; Fig. 9 and ¶[87] disclose that when the first vehicle is connected, a schedule is set such that region P1 is used for charging the first vehicle {one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this as setting charging start time based on a scheduled travel start time})
wherein when the electrified vehicle is able to transmit and receive the power to and from the predetermined facility (¶[45])
the charging start time is set based on scheduled charging power in the external charging (Fig. 6; ¶s[69-74, esp. 71] disclose that region P1 indicated from the current point in time until a scheduled boarding time T1 represents power that can be allocated for charging {one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this as scheduled charging power}. The charging control device controls the charging schedule {one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this as setting charging start time} such that the power thus determined that can be allocated for charging at each period of time is not exceeded).
the scheduled charging power being determined within a range of allowable power of the predetermined facility (Fig. 6; ¶s[69-74, esp. 71] disclose that region P1 indicated from the current point in time until a scheduled boarding time T1 represents power that can be allocated for charging {interpreted as scheduled charging power}. The charging control device controls the charging schedule such that the power thus determined that can be allocated for charging at each period of time is not exceeded {interpreted as range of allowable power}).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Ichishi discloses charging start time (Fig. 3 – S22; ¶s[53-58, 86-91] disclose boarding time used to start charging control device 400; a charging schedule set in region P1 for charging the first vehicle, disclosed in Fig. 9 and ¶[87])
Ichishi teaches the scheduled charging power (Fig. 3 – S7; Fig. 6; ¶s[69-74] disclose that charging control device determines a charging speed based on the scheduled boarding time. The charging speed is determined according to the allocated power. If it is expected that required charging will not be completed before the scheduled boarding time, a warning message may be output at the time of start of charging).
For a fixed required charging energy and completion time, the charging time for a given required amount of charge is shorter when the scheduled charging power is larger; because the completion target is fixed, a larger scheduled charging power necessarily yields a later charging start time. This comparative result is a predictable mathematical consequence of applying Ichishi's capacity-limited charging power to the charging start-time calculation.
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Ichishi teaches the scheduled charging power being set based on surplus power obtained as a difference between the allowable power and predicted power consumption of the predetermined facility (Fig. 6; ¶s[67, 69-71] disclose that the power that can be allocated for charging (region P1) is the difference between contract power capacity {or allowable power} of the household (3000 W or 30 A) and an average of the household’s recorded received power {or predicted power consumption} other than vehicle charging for each period of time, which is applied to the future time periods up to the scheduled boarding time T1).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Ichishi teaches the predicted power consumption being estimated based on a history for a predetermined period (Fig. 6; ¶s[70-71] disclose that the charging control device sums up actual values of receiving power other than that for charging the vehicle for each period of time, to calculate an average value {interpreted as estimating based on a history}; Fig. 4 – S33 and ¶[53] disclose that a boarding time and an alighting time, for each trip in the vehicle, for about a month may be transmitted as the record of boarding and alighting {interpreted as predetermined period}).
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes et al. (US 20160221456 A1) in view of Ichishi (US 20100217485 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Rhodes discloses the following:
A vehicle management device that is used in an electrified vehicle equipped with a power storage device (Fig. 3 - Battery Energy Control Module (BECM) 76; ¶[19] discloses Battery Energy Control Module (BECM) 76 monitors and controls the performance of the traction battery 24 {of an electrified vehicle mentioned in Fig. 1 and ¶s[2-5]});
and sets, when the electrified vehicle is able to transmit and receive power to and from a predetermined facility (Fig. 3 – Converter 142; ¶[24] discloses EVSE 38 with a bi-directional AC/DC converter 142 which is electrically connected to the power source 36 and conducts electric power to and from the traction battery 24; ¶[42] discloses that The battery may be discharged by providing energy from the vehicle to the electrical grid 36 (V2G) or by providing energy from the vehicle to a home-based electrical load (V2H) 152);
a charging start time for external charging for charging the power storage device using power from the predetermined facility, based on a next scheduled travel start time or a set time (Fig. 4 – 204, 218, 220; ¶s[15, 32, 34, 36-40, 43, esp. 43] disclose charging traction battery 24 from external power source 36 through EVSE 38 where the battery charging system may determine an amount of time required to charge {or charging start time} the vehicle based on the expected usage time and storage duration derived from the historical drive cycle data {one of ordinary skilled in the art would interpret this as the next scheduled travel start time or a set time})
wherein when the electrified vehicle is able to transmit and receive the power to and from the predetermined facility (Fig. 3 – Converter 142; ¶[24] discloses EVSE 38 with a bi-directional AC/DC converter 142)
the charging start time is set in the external charging (Fig. 4 – 218, 220; ¶[43] mentions that battery charging system calculates an estimated time to charge from the present SOC to the operating charge level at operation 218 and at operation 220, the system calculates the time to start charging {or charging start time} to reach the operating charge level at the return time).
Rhodes is silent to the scheduled charging power being determined within a range of allowable power of the predetermined facility.
Ichishi teaches scheduled charging power being determined within a range of allowable power of the predetermined facility (Fig. 6; ¶s[69-74, esp. 71] disclose that region P1 indicated from the current point in time until a scheduled boarding time T1 represents power that can be allocated for charging {interpreted as scheduled charging power}. The charging control device controls the charging schedule such that the power thus determined that can be allocated for charging at each period of time is not exceeded {interpreted as range of allowable power}).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rhodes with Ichishi, to incorporate a scheduled charging power, so as to complete charging by the expected usage time without exceeding the contract capacity and tripping the household breaker (¶ [5-7]).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Rhodes discloses charging start time (Fig. 4 – 218-220; ¶s[36, 43] disclose that battery charging system calculates an estimated time to charge from the present SOC to the operating charge level at operation 218 and at operation 220, the system calculates the time to start charging {charging start time} to reach the operating charge level at the return time).
Rhodes is silent to the scheduled charging power.
Ichishi teaches the scheduled charging power (Fig. 3 – S7; Fig. 6; ¶s[69-74] disclose that charging control device determines a charging speed based on the scheduled boarding time. The charging speed is determined according to the allocated power. If it is expected that required charging will not be completed before the scheduled boarding time, a warning message may be output at the time of start of charging).
For a fixed required charging energy and completion time, the charging time for a given required amount of charge is shorter when the scheduled charging power is larger; because the completion target is fixed, a larger scheduled charging power necessarily yields a later charging start time. This comparative result is a predictable mathematical consequence of applying Ichishi's capacity-limited charging power to Rhodes's charging start-time calculation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rhodes with Ichishi, to incorporate a such a charging system that accounts for the scheduled power being delivered and the charging start time, so as to complete charging by the expected usage time without exceeding the contract capacity and tripping the household breaker (¶s[5-7]).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Rhodes is silent to the scheduled charging power being set based on surplus power obtained as a difference between the allowable power and predicted power consumption of the predetermined facility.
Ichishi teaches the scheduled charging power being set based on surplus power obtained as a difference between the allowable power and predicted power consumption of the predetermined facility (Fig. 6; ¶s[67, 69-71] disclose that the power that can be allocated for charging (region P1) is the difference between contract power capacity {or allowable power} of the household (3000 W or 30 A) and an average of the household’s recorded received power {or predicted power consumption} other than vehicle charging for each period of time, which is applied to the future time periods up to the scheduled boarding time T1).
With regards to claim 3, the combination as modified by Ichishi teaches the scheduled charging power being set based on surplus power obtained as a difference between the allowable power and predicted power consumption of the predetermined facility.
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Rhodes is silent to the predicted power consumption being estimated based on a history for a predetermined period.
Ichishi teaches the predicted power consumption being estimated based on a history for a predetermined period (Fig. 6; ¶s[70-71] disclose that the charging control device sums up actual values of receiving power other than that for charging the vehicle for each period of time, to calculate an average value {interpreted as estimating based on a history}; Fig. 4 – S33 and ¶[53] disclose that a boarding time and an alighting time, for each trip in the vehicle, for about a month may be transmitted as the record of boarding and alighting {interpreted as predetermined period}).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rhodes with Ichishi, to estimate the predicted power consumption based on a history for a predetermined period. The reason for performing the modification would have been to get accurate data on the power consumption of the facility and to achieve increased possibility that a vehicle desired to be used can be used at a desired time of use, while performing charging within contract power ¶[5-7].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kojima (US 10919397) discloses an in-vehicle ECU that calculates a charging start time so timer charging completes before a user-input expected departure time, the required charging time period being calculated from the charging power the external facility can supply.
Mitsutani (US 20140239894) discloses a vehicle charging controller that acquires the level of power a residential source can supply and determines the charging start time point from that suppliable power and a user-set completion time.
Kudo et al. (US 10511171) discloses an electrified vehicle with a bidirectional charger that both charges its main battery from, and discharges it to, an external power supply at the owner's home for power-system stabilization.
Inui et al. (US 20230104789) discloses a charging and discharging control device with V2G/V2H, a next-use-time schedule, historical use patterns, predicted grid demand, and solar generation minus home use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAWHID PRANTO whose telephone number is (571)270-3205. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9am-6pm (often working later), M-F, ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JULIAN HUFFMAN can be reached on (571)272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/TAWHID M PRANTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights