DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a first Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al, US 2022/0297563 in view of LEE, US 2024/0072536.
Re claims 1 and 9:
JO teaches a low voltage battery charging control system for an electrified vehicle, the low voltage battery charging control system comprising:
A supervisory controller (control unit 300) configured to control a powertrain of the electrified vehicle, wherein the supervisory controller is connected to a plurality of other electronic control units (ECUs) of the electrified vehicle via a control area network (CAN) (i.e., the control unit is connected to other components via CAN communication [0010]. The examine considers the other components to implicitly include ECUs as ECU to powertrain controller communication via CAN is necessary for vehicle operation);
A first intelligent battery sensor (IBS) configured to generate a first set of measurements indicative of a first set of parameters, respectively, of a first low voltage battery system of the electrified vehicle (i.e., battery sensor 200 [0039] [0040]); and
A local interconnect network (LIN) bus connecting the supervisory controller and the first IBS [0052] [Figure 1],
Wherein the supervisory controller is configured to receive a charging request from the IBS via the LIN bus and control charging of the first low voltage battery system without waking up the CAN and the plurality of ECUs connected thereto and thereby avoiding any electrical power drain associated therewith [0054].
JO does not teach the supervisory controller receives the first set of measurements from the IBS; however,
LEE teaches a low voltage battery charging control system for an electric vehicle, wherein a controller (170) receives a first set of measurements indicative of a first set of parameters of a first low voltage battery system of the electrified vehicle from an IBS (150) and, accordingly, controls charging of the low voltage battery system [0070] [0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of LEE in the system of JO such that the supervisory controller receives the first set of measurements from the IBS and determines whether to chart the vehicle based on the received first set of measurements. Shifting the determination processing from the sensor to the supervisory controller is merely a common design choice in the art that would consolidate processing functions at the controller.
Re claims 2 and 10:
JO, in view of LEE, teaches the low voltage battery charging control system of claim 1 and method of claim 9, wherein the first IBS is not connected to a body control module (BMC) or other vehicle network supervisor module via another LIN bus [0052].
Re claims 3 and 11:
JO, in view of LEE, teaches the low voltage battery charging control system of claim 1 and method of claim 9, wherein the first LIN bus is a preexisting LIN bus associated with the supervisory controller [0052]-[0056] [Figure 1].
Re claims 4 and 12:
JO, in view of LEE, teaches the low voltage battery charging control system of claim 1 and method of claim 9, wherein the first low voltage battery system does not have a separate controller or control module [0035] [0036] [Figure 1].
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al, US 2022/0297563 in view of LEE, US 2024/0072536, as applied in claims 1 and 9, and further in view of JANG, US 2018/0072300.
Re claims 5 and 13:
JO, in view of LEE, teaches the low voltage battery charging control system of claim 1 and method of claim 9, but does not specify the type of the first low voltage battery system being a 12 Volt lead-acid type battery; however,
JANG teaches an electrified vehicle having a first low voltage battery system comprising a 12 V lead-acid battery [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of JANG in the system and method of JO such that the first low voltage battery system is a 12 V lead-acid battery. 12 V lead-acid batteries are merely common batteries known in the art to be economical choice for low-demand vehicles.
Re claims 6 and 14:
JO, in view of LEE, teaches the low voltage battery charging control system of claim 1 and method of claim 9, but does not specify the type of the first low voltage battery system being a 12 Volt absorbent glass material (AGM) type battery; however,
JANG teaches an electrified vehicle having a first low voltage battery system comprising a 12 V AGM battery [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of JANG in the system and method of JO such that the first low voltage battery system is a 12 V AGM battery system. 12 V AGM batteries are merely common batteries known in the art for providing high performance and durability.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al, US 2022/0297563 in view of LEE, US 2024/0072536, as applied in claims 1 and 9, and further in view of ZENG, WO 2024/045685.
Re claims 7 and 15:
JO, in view of LEE, teaches the low voltage battery charging control system of claim 1 and method of claim 9, but does not teach a second IBS configured to generate a second set of measurements indicative of a second set of parameters, respectively, of a second low voltage battery system of the electrified vehicle, wherein the LIN bus also connects the supervisory controller and the second IBS; however,
ZENG teaches a charging control system and method, comprising a plurality of auxiliary batteries (201) with corresponding IBS (202), wherein the corresponding IBS communicate with a controller via a LIN bus [0085] [Figure 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of ZENG in the system and method of JO such that the electrified vehicle comprises a second low voltage battery system including a second IBS for the purpose of further supporting the vehicle’s main battery.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al, US 2022/0297563 in view of LEE, US 2024/0072536, as applied in claims 1 and 9, and further in view of YOUN et al, US 2020/0185943.
Re claims 8 and 16:
JO, in view of LEE, teaches the low voltage battery charging control system of claim 1 and method of claim 9, but does not teach the supervisory controller is a hybrid control processor (HCP); however,
YOUN teaches a charging system for an auxiliary battery of an electrified vehicle, comprising an HCP (50) [0031] [Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of YOUN in the system and method of JO such that the supervisory controller is an HCP. HCPs are merely standard in the electric vehicle art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A GUDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7607. If the Examiner cannot be reached by telephone, she can be reached through the following e-mail address: laura.gudorf@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:00-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LAURA A GUDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights