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 .
Response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Amendments and Remarks filed on 02/18/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follow:
Regarding the claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s amendments and arguments for claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
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: “control units configured to” in claim 15.
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. The corresponding structure found for “control units” is a “processor device 202” [Spec ¶ 0059]. Therefore, “control units” is being interpreted as a general computer.
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 § 103
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.
Claims 2, 3, 1, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im (KR-20200134009) in view of Kim (US PGPub 2019/0190092).
With respect to claim 2: A computer-implemented method, comprising [Im ¶ 0060]:
determining, by a processor device of a computer system, a requested take-off of a parked electric vehicle [Im ¶ 0011 "giving priority to charging control at the initial stage of starting a vehicle" and ¶ 0002 "controlling battery charging of an electric vehicle"];
determining, by the processor device, a battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle [Im ¶ 0023 "battery status measurement unit (110) is installed inside the vehicle (100) can measure battery status data including battery temperature];
determining, by the processor device, an ambient temperature of the electric vehicle [Im ¶ 0025 "The control unit (120) can request climate data from the data server (200) … the climate data may include outside temperature data corresponding to the current location data of the vehicle (100)"];
determining, by the processor device, a thermal activity state of at least one battery cell as the difference between the battery temperature and the ambient temperature [Im ¶ 0027 "battery charging/discharging abnormality based on the difference between the battery temperature at the start and the outside temperature"];
when the thermal activity state is above a predetermined thermal activity state threshold [Im ¶ 0028 “an abnormal discharge state exists when the difference between the battery temperature and the outside temperature exceeds a first threshold value”],
Im does not teach disconnecting, by the processor device, a battery energy storage system of the vehicle thereby preventing the requested take off when the thermal activity state is above a predetermined thermal activity state threshold.
However, in a related field of invention, Kim does teach disconnecting, by the processor device, a battery energy storage system of the vehicle thereby preventing the requested take off when the thermal activity state is above a predetermined thermal activity state threshold [Kim ¶ 0039-40 "The present invention provides a battery pack including the battery cell and the controller may further include a function electrically disconnecting the external input/output terminal of the battery cell when a measured temperature is equal to or greater than a critical value."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im with the disconnecting of the battery cell when the temperature is greater than a critical value as taught by Kim in order to improve safety [Kim ¶ 0040].
With respect to claim 3: Im as modified by Kim teaches the method of claim 2. Im further teaches further comprising:
allowing, by the processor device, the requested take-off when the battery temperature is above a predetermined battery temperature threshold and when the thermal activity state is below the predetermined thermal activity state threshold [Im ¶ [0009]- [0011] and [0021]- [0030]].
With respect to claim 1: All limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 2. The method taught/disclosed in claim 2 can clearly perform on the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 13: All limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 2. The method taught/disclosed in claim 2 can clearly perform on the system of claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 15: All limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 2. The method taught/disclosed in claim 2 can clearly perform on the system of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 16: All limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 2. The method taught/disclosed in claim 2 can clearly perform on the medium of claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Kim and in further view of Zhao (EP-4023488).
With respect to claim 4: Im as modified by Kim teaches the method of claim 2. Im as modifed by Kim does not teach further comprising: requesting increased cooling of the at least one battery cell.
However, in a related field of invention, Zhao does teach further comprising: requesting increased cooling of the at least one battery cell [Zhao ¶ 0007 "performing a cooling process on the battery pack" and ¶ 00014].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im and Kim with the cooling of the at least one battery cell as taught by Zhao in order to prevent abnormalities in the battery caused by charging a battery in a too high temperature state.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Kim and in further view of Yun (US PGPub 20150132615).
With respect to claim 5: Im as modified by Kim teaches the method of claim 2. Im as modifed by Kim does not teach wherein: determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one sensor mounted on at least one battery cell.
However, in a related field of invention, Yun teaches wherein: determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one sensor mounted on at least one battery cell [Yun ¶ 0007 "a plurality of temperature sensors adjacent to the battery cells"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im and Kim with the temperature sensor placement on at least one battery cell as taught by Yun in order to more accurately detect the temperature of a battery cell.
With respect to claim 10: Im as modified by Kim teaches the method of claim 2. Im as modifed by Kim does not teach further comprising: determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle as an average value of a plurality of battery temperature values.
However, in a related field of invention, Yun does teach further comprising: determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle as an average value of a plurality of battery temperature values [Yun ¶ 0007 "a battery pack include a battery module including a plurality of battery cells; a plurality of temperature sensors adjacent to the battery cells;" and ¶ 0014 "The control unit may be configured to substitute a temperature value corresponding to defective temperature sensor with an average of temperature values from temperature sensors determined not to be defective"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im and Kim with using the average temperature value as taught by Yun in order to more accurately detect the temperature of a battery cell.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Kim and in further view of Lee (KR-20190095047).
With respect to claim 6: Im as modified by Kim teaches the method of claim 2. Im as modifed by Kim does not teach wherein: determining the battery temperature of at Least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one sensor mounted on at least one battery module.
However, in a related field of invention, Lee does teach wherein: determining the battery temperature of at Least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one sensor mounted on at least one battery module [Lee ¶ 0011 "It is characterized in that it comprises a heat conducting member connected to the temperature sensor at the specific position to transfer the temperature of the specific position to the temperature sensor." and ¶ 0013 " The specific position may be located at the edge of the battery module, and the temperature sensor may be located at the center of the battery module."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im and Kim with placing the temperature sensor on at least one battery module as taught by Lee in order to increase the design freedom of the battery module and improve the stability, life, and performance of the battery module [Lee ¶ 0010].
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Kim and in further view of Bertness (US PGPub 20210203016).
With respect to claim 7: Im as modified by Kim teaches the method of claim 2. Im as modifed by Kim does not teach wherein: determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one sensor mounted on at least one battery pack.
However, in a related field of invention, Bertness does teach wherein: determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one sensor mounted on at least one battery pack [Bertness ¶ 0023 "the battery pack 104 is illustrated as including its own optional controller 120 which monitors operation of the battery pack 104 using battery pack sensors 122." and ¶ 0025 For example, the sensors 122 may include temperature sensors configured to disconnect the batteries of the battery pack if a threshold temperature is exceeded"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im and Kim with placing the temperature sensor on at least one battery module as taught by Bertness in order to increase the design freedom of the battery module and improve the stability, life, and performance of the battery module [Lee ¶ 0010].
With respect to claim 8: Im as modified by Kim teaches the method of claim 2. Im as modifed by Kim does not teach wherein:
determining the ambient temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one ambient sensor mounted remote, or on the exterior, of at least one battery pack.
However, in a related field of invention, Bertness does teach wherein:
determining the ambient temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one ambient sensor mounted remote, or on the exterior, of at least one battery pack [Bertness ¶ 0069 "In another aspect, the device of FIG. 1 includes an ambient temperature sensor. The microprocessor can use information from the ambient temperature sensor in determining how the battery pack should be discharged.” And ¶ 0025 "the sensors 122 may include temperature sensors configured to disconnect the batteries of the battery pack if a threshold temperature is exceeded." and Figure 1 element 122].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im and Kim with placing the ambient temperature sensor on the exterior of at least one battery pack as taught by Bertness in order to increase accuracy of the ambient temperature.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Kim and in further view of Joos (US PGPub 20210167473).
With respect to claim 9: Im as modified by Kim teaches the method of claim 2. Im as modifed by Kim does not teach wherein: preventing the requested take-off is performed by disconnecting the at least one battery cell.
However, in a related field of invention, Joos does teach wherein: preventing the requested take-off is performed by disconnecting the at least one battery cell [Joos ¶ 0007 "protection is provided by a method for disconnecting an battery...including at least two battery cells from at least one electrical component, in particular a drive component, of a vehicle."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im and Kim with the disconnecting of a battery cell as taught by Joos in order to allow a reliable and flexible switching of the battery cells [Joos ¶ 0015].
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Kim and in further view of Tochikav (DE-102017102458).
With respect to claim 11: Im as modified by Kim teaches the method of claim 2. Im as modifed by Kim does not teach further comprising: determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle as a maximum value of a plurality of battery temperature values.
However, in a related field of invention, Tochikav does teach further comprising: determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle as a maximum value of a plurality of battery temperature values [Tockikawa ¶ 0005 "When the battery maximum temperature is greater than the first reference value and the battery minimum temperature is the second reference value or greater, the battery temperature selection section selects the battery maximum temperature as the battery temperature selection value."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im and Kim with taking the maximum value taught by Tochikawa in order to more accurately determine the battery temperature of a battery cell.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im in view of Kim in view of Yun in view of Bertness and in further view of Joos.
With respect to claim 12: Im as modified by Kim teaches the method of claim 2. Im further teaches further comprising:
allowing, by the processor device, the requested take-off when the battery temperature is above a predetermined battery temperature threshold and when the thermal activity state is below the predetermined thermal activity state threshold [Im ¶ [0009]-[0011] and [0021]-[0030].
Im as modifed by Kim does not teach wherein
determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one sensor mounted on at least one battery cell, battery module, or battery pack and
wherein determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle as an average value or a maximum value of a plurality of battery temperature values.
However, in a related field of invention, Yun does teach determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one sensor mounted on at least one battery cell, battery module, or battery pack [Yun ¶ 0007 "a plurality of temperature sensors adjacent to the battery cells"], and wherein
determining the battery temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle as an average value or a maximum value of a plurality of battery temperature values [Yun ¶ 0007 "a battery pack include a battery module including a plurality of battery cells; a plurality of temperature sensors adjacent to the battery cells;" and ¶ 0014 "The control unit may be configured to substitute a temperature value corresponding to defective temperature sensor with an average of temperature values from temperature sensors determined not to be defective"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im and Kim with using the average temperature value and mounting the sensor on a battery cell as taught by Yun in order to more accurately detect the temperature of a battery cell.
Im as modifed by Kim and Yun does not teach determining the ambient temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one ambient sensor mounted remote, or on the exterior, of at least one battery pack.
However, in a related field of invention, Bertness does teach determining the ambient temperature of at least one battery cell of the electric vehicle is performed by means of at least one ambient sensor mounted remote, or on the exterior, of at least one battery pack [Bertness ¶ 0069 "In another aspect, the device of FIG. 1 includes an ambient temperature sensor. The microprocessor can use information from the ambient temperature sensor in determining how the battery pack should be discharged. And ¶ 0025 "the sensors 122 may include temperature sensors configured to disconnect the batteries of the battery pack if a threshold temperature is exceeded." and Figure 1 element 122].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im, Yakura, and Yun with placing the ambient temperature sensor on the exterior of at least one battery pack as taught by Bertness in order to increase accuracy of the ambient temperature.
Im as modifed by Yakura, Yun, and Bertness does not teach wherein preventing the requested take-off is performed by disconnecting the at least one battery cell.
However, in a related field of invention, Joos does teach wherein preventing the requested take-off is performed by disconnecting the at least one battery cell [Joos ¶ 0007 "protection is provided by a method for disconnecting an battery...including at least two battery cells from at least one electrical component, in particular a drive component, of a vehicle."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the battery charging apparatus as taught by Im, Yakura, Yun, and Bertness with the disconnecting of a battery cell as taught by Joos in order to allow a reliable and flexible switching of the battery cells [Joos ¶ 0015].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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 i(nformation 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights