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 Objections
Claims 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each claim contains the term “the DCD.” This is thought to be a typo; the Examiner believes that Applicant intended to refer back to the “DCDC” introduced in claims 13 and 18, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains the typo “first idle speed,:”. This is improper punctuation. Furthermore, the limitation “for low-voltage electrical apparatus” appears to contain a typo and was intended to be written “for a low-voltage electrical apparatus.” 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 13 and 18 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.
Claims 13 and 18 recite the limitation "a high-voltage disconnection instruction for disconnecting the main relay.” It is unclear whether this instruction is intended to be the same as or different from the previously introduced “high-voltage disconnection instruction for disconnecting the main relay” presented in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120277058 A1 to Ishikawa, Yasuki (“Ishikawa”), further in light of US 20200094833 A1 to Hamperl, Helmut et al (“Hamperl”).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa teaches a high-voltage battery control method for a hybrid vehicle (FIG. 1), comprising:
when a main relay of a high-voltage battery of the hybrid vehicle is closed (FIGS. 1 and 3: S1 taken as the main relay.), controlling a driving motor of the hybrid vehicle so that a rotating speed of the driving motor reaches a first idle speed (FIG. 3: First switch S1 is operated to start the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this inherently requires the driving motor reach a first idle speed to start the engine; however, the Examiner introduces Hamperl below for a more explicit teaching of the feature.) in response to determining that a predetermined condition is satisfied (FIG. 3; Claim 1: The threshold temperature broadly reads on a predetermined condition for starting the engine.).
While Ishikawa appears to teach controlling the driving motor to at least reach a first idle speed in order to start the engine, this teaching is not immediately explicit. However, Hamperl teaches at [0034] that to start the engine, a starter-generator must turn it at a minimum rotational speed. In light of Hamperl, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that starting the engine of Ishikawa with the starter/generator of Ishikawa would have required spinning the motor up to a starting speed because doing so would have enabled it to start the engine as discussed therein.
APOSITA would have understood that Ishikawa in light of Hamperl further teaches sending, to the high-voltage battery, a high-voltage disconnection instruction for disconnecting the main relay (Ishikawa FIG. 3: Step a31.);
then controlling the driving motor so that the rotating speed of the driving motor reaches a second idle speed, the second idle speed being greater than the first idle speed (Ishikawa [0026]: “Then, at step a33, the vehicle control unit 15 adjusts the rotation speed of the internal combustion engine 10, for example speeding up the rotation speed of the internal combustion engine 10, so as to prevent the internal combustion engine 10 from being shut off due to the relatively high electric energy output from the integrated starter generator (ISG) 11.” Understood that once the engine is started, it is sped up. This requires that the speed of the engine after speeding up is higher than the minimum speed required to start the engine. The speed the motor is sped up to in compensation for the high electric energy output is taken as the second idle speed.); and
then controlling the driving motor to output a predetermined voltage for heating the high-voltage battery (Ishikawa FIG. 3: Step a35.).
Regarding claim 2, APOSITA would have understood that Ishikawa in light of Hamperl teaches the high-voltage battery control method according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes:
a heating request for the high-voltage battery is received (Ishikawa FIG. 3; Claim 1: Temperature threshold triggers starting the engine.); and
a battery power of the high-voltage battery is less than or equal to a first calibration value (Ishikawa FIG. 2; [0021]: Ishikawa teaches starting the engine when the battery level is low. The present claims only require that the driving motor is driven to the first idle speed in response to the conditions; amending the claim to require that the subsequent steps of sending the disconnection instruction and controlling the motor to accelerate to a second idle speed and output a predetermined voltage also in response to any predetermined condition being satisfied appears to overcome Ishikawa. ).
Claim 6 is rejected over similar reasons to the method of claim 1, applied to the structure of a hybrid vehicle discussed therein.
Claim 7 is rejected over similar reasons to the method of claim 2, applied to the structure of a hybrid vehicle discussed therein.
Regarding claim 16, APOSITA would have recognized that Ishikawa in light of Hamperl teaches the high-voltage battery control method according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Ishikawa further teaches controlling the driving motor to enter a power-off process in response to determining that the predetermined condition is not satisfied ([0031]: “In other words, when the temperature of the battery module 13 is higher than the second threshold temperature and the electric energy of the DC power is supplied from the battery module 13, the vehicle control unit 15 turns on the first switch S1 and turns off the second switch S2 and ceases the operation of the internal combustion engine 10 and the integrated starter generator (ISG) inverter 110.”).
Claim 21 is rejected over similar reasons to the method of claim 16, applied to the structure of a hybrid vehicle discussed therein.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in light of Hamperl, and further in view of US 20150321661 A1 to Hayashi, Koji et al (“Hayashi”).
Regarding claim 3, APOSITA would have understood that Ishikawa in light of Hamperl further the high-voltage battery control method according to claim 2 as discussed above.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the predetermined condition further includes at least one of:
the hybrid vehicle is in a stationary state; and
an allowed charging power of the high-voltage battery is less than or equal to a second calibration value.
However, Hayashi teaches wherein the predetermined condition further includes at least one of:
the hybrid vehicle is in a stationary state ([0081]: “The present hybrid vehicle drive control device 10 is further configures such that the engine 12 is started while the hybrid vehicle is held stationary, and while the output gear . . . is locked by the parking mechanism 62 . . . .”); and
an allowed charging power of the high-voltage battery is less than or equal to a second calibration value (“At least one of” requires consideration of only one of the listed options.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that starts the engine of a hybrid vehicle of Ishikawa in light of Hamperl, further in view of [], with the system that starts the engine of a hybrid vehicle when the vehicle is stationary and in the parking gear of Hayashi. Doing so would have improved the vehicle’s safety by preventing the starting operation from causing unexpected motion of the vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected over similar reasons to the method of claim 3, applied to the structure of a hybrid vehicle discussed therein.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in light of Hamperl, and further in view of CN 105922984 A to Zhang, Long-cong et al (“Hayashi”).
Regarding claim 5, APOSITA would have understood that Ishikawa in light of Hamperl teaches the high-voltage battery control method according to claim 1 as discussed above.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the apparatus used to heat the battery is a PTC heating apparatus.
However, Zhang teaches that the apparatus used to heat a battery is a PTC heating apparatus (FIG. 3: PCT Ceramic heater 100.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the hybrid vehicle comprising a battery heater of Ishikawa in light of Hamperl with the PTC battery heater for a hybrid vehicle of Zhang. Doing so would have provided a heater with “high heat exchange efficiency” as taught by Zhang in their discussion of FIG. 2 in the machine translation.
APOSITA would have understood before the date of filing that Ishikawa in light of Hamperl, further in view of Zhang thus teaches wherein controlling the driving motor to output the predetermined voltage for heating the high-voltage battery includes:
controlling the driving motor to supply the predetermined voltage to a PTC heating apparatus for heating the high-voltage battery (Ishikawa FIG. 3: Step a35 teaches controlling the average voltage level of Vdc “according to the temperature of the battery module 13” to power the heater. See [0027] of Ishikawa. APOSITA would have recognized that Ishikawa’s control system would have provided this temperature-dependent average voltage level to the PTC heater of Zhang.).
Claim 10 is rejected over similar reasons to the method of claim 5, applied to the structure of a hybrid vehicle discussed therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 12-15, and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if: (1) they are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and (2) the various applicable §112 rejections and claim rejections are resolved.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating subject matter that is allowable over the prior art:
The prior art of record does not teach or disclose, alone or in combination, any of the dependent claims above. In particular, the narrow disclosure of the invention present in the claims means it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined other prior art with the prior art listed above to achieve the effects of opening the main relay of a hybrid vehicle depending on the conditions of certain components or the relay itself. This is because while activity like opening and closing switches in response to conditions in a vehicle computing environment is known in the art as evidenced by Ishikawa, for example, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to perform the various checks and controls disclosed in the listed dependents at the particular times and in response to the particular conditions required by those claims.
Furthermore, dependent claims 4, 9, 13, and 18 require disconnecting the main relay when the vehicle’s PTC heater and DCDC converter have the status of “normal.” This is counterintuitive to the common practice of disconnecting a relay when component status reads “abnormal.” Thus, these claims are narrowly directed toward addressing whether to proceed with the battery heating process in the hybrid vehicle of the present invention, rather than broadly directed toward standard relay control practices.
Therefore, the dependent claims above are allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form with all intervening claims, and the objections and §112 rejections are resolved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Axelsson, Tobias et al. US 20120301755 A1. APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE TEMPERATURE OF A BATTERY IN A HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE.
Oba, Satoshi et al. JP 2006304551 A. STATE JUDGING SYSTEM AND VEHICLE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights