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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 10/28/2025. The objections to the Specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Accordingly, claims 1-7 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “…cools an electric power converter” should be - - …cools the power converter (PCU) - - for consistent terminology in light of the amendments to claim 1.
Claims 2-7 are objected based on dependency from an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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- 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20200094685A1) in view of Duan et al. (US20230094070A1) and in further view of Hanamura (JP2003274509A).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a controller [controller 23, Figure 1] that is configured to execute output limitation [where the controller operates the power converter at a target value defined as the lesser of a predefined limit value or the requested voltage value; 0004] of a voltage control unit (VCU) [variable voltage converter 21, Figure 1; where voltage converter 21 can boost battery; 0012] that controls electric power supplied to the power converter (PCU) [where inverter 18 receives power from voltage converter 21, where inverter 18 includes switches 26-48, which the inverter uses to converts DC power from the DC bus to AC for the motor 14, Figure 1; 0013] in accordance with a temperature of a refrigerant [where the predefined limit value varies with temperature of coolant; 0004] and the controller changes a criterion for executing the output limitation of the voltage control unit (VCU) [where controller 23 controls switches 66,68 based on coolant temperature based maximum allowable voltage; 0018] in accordance with a deterioration state of a battery [Where target voltage of the DC bus 19 may be controlled with respect to battery voltage; 0018; and where allowable output voltage increases as temperature increases because the internal resistance of the traction battery 22 is significantly affected by temperature; 0015]
Chen does not teach where the criterion for executing the output limitation is a temperature.
However, Duan teaches an electrified vehicle with a thermal management system for a battery [0001] where the criterion [temperature thresholds T1-T4, Figure 2] for executing the output limitation is a temperature [where thermal conditioning levels are configured to adjust a plurality of temperature thresholds based on a battery state of health; 0029] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, using a temperature threshold, to a known device, a controller, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., Minimizing future degradation by using a temperature threshold for when to limit a voltage output rather than solely monitor existing battery state through a voltage threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have where the criterion is a temperature in view of the teachings of Duan where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., Minimizing future degradation by using a temperature threshold for when to limit a voltage output rather than solely monitor existing battery state through a voltage threshold.
Chen teaches output limitation in accordance with a temperature of a refrigerant that cools the voltage control unit (VCU) [coolant used to cool the variable voltage converter 21; 0018] but does not teach output limitation in accordance with the refrigerant that cools the power converter (PCU).
However, Hanamura teaches a controller [motor control unit 7, Figure 1] that executes output limitation [where control unit 7 reduces total power of the converter 3 and inverter 5; 0030] of a voltage control unit (VCU) [converter 3, Figure 1] where the output limitation is in accordance with the refrigerant that cools the power converter (PCU) [where the coolant temperature is compared to predetermined temperature values Tw1 and Tw2; 0030; 0044; where converter 3 and inverter 5 are cooled by a common cooling device 10 with cooling water circulating upstream of inverter; 0028] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, where the VCU and PCU are cooled by a common cooling device, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a highly reliable power conversion device that is low cost and effectively prevents the inverter and converter from becoming overheated [Hanamura;0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where output limitation in accordance with the refrigerant that cools the power converter (PCU) in view of the teachings of Hanamura where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a highly reliable power conversion device that is low cost and effectively prevents the inverter and converter from becoming overheated [Hanamura;0015].
Regarding Claim 2, Chen, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the controller is configured to, as deterioration in the battery advances, lower the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation.
However, Duan teaches an electrified vehicle with a thermal management system for a battery [0001] where the controller [controller 30, Figure 1] is configured to, as deterioration in the battery advances [state of health (SOH) of the battery, Figure 3; 0046], lower the temperature serving as the criterion [where the controller 30 is configured to adjust the temperature thresholds T0-T4 to preserve the health of the battery pack 24, Figure 4; 0052; and when the SOH is below a predefined range the cooling thresholds are reduced;0053;0055] for executing the output limitation [where cooling is restricted to levels relative to threshold temperatures; 0048, Figure 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, lowering a threshold temperature as the battery deteriorates, to a known device, a controller, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving the lifespan of an expensive battery by actively adjusting operating conditions to the capabilities of the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have where the controller is configured to, as deterioration in the battery advances, lower the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation in view of the teachings of Duan where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving the lifespan of an expensive battery by actively adjusting operating conditions to the capabilities of the battery.
Claim 2 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitation is “as deterioration in the battery advances, the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation is lowered.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 3, Chen, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches power saving [where the controller operates the power converter at a target value at a predefined limit value; 0004] and does not teach where the controller is configured to, based on whether or not power saving is executed for the battery, change the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation, wherein the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation when power save is being performed with respect to the battery is higher than the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation when power save is not being performed with respect to the battery.
However, Hanamura teaches a controller [motor control unit 7, Figure 1] that executes output limitation [where control unit 7 reduces total power of the converter 3 and inverter 5; 0030] where the controller [control unit 7; Figure 1] is configured to, based on whether or not power saving is executed for the battery [where control unit 7 reduces total power of the converter 3 and inverter 5; 0030], change the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation [where when the converter temperature Tg is equal to or higher than a predetermined value Tg1, the amount of power generated by the generator Pg is limited according to the converter temperature Tg; 0005; where when converter temperature is already above Tg1, with limited Pg, but also above Tg2 power generated Pg is zero; 0005], wherein the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation [Tg2, Figure 2;0005] when power save is being performed with respect to the battery [when Tg1 is exceeded; 0005] is higher than the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation when power save is not being performed [Tg1, Figure 2;005] with respect to the battery [where when the converter's power is limited and the motor's output temporarily decreases, the converter's cooling capacity improves, making it possible to increase the power output by the generator and charge the battery; 0013] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a highly reliable power conversion device that is low cost and effectively prevents the inverter and converter from becoming overheated [Hanamura;0015]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the controller is configured to, based on whether or not power saving is executed for the battery, lower the temperature serving as the criterion, in view of the teachings of Hanamura where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a highly reliable power conversion device that is low cost and effectively prevents the inverter and converter from becoming overheated [Hanamura;0015]
Claim 3 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitation is “based on whether or not power saving is executed for the battery, the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation is lowered.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 4, Chen, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the deterioration state of the battery is determined based on internal resistance of the battery.
However, Duane teaches where the controller [controller 30, Figure 1] is configured to determine the deterioration state [state of health; 0045] of the battery [battery pack 24, Figure 1] based on internal resistance of the battery [where the state of health of the battery pack 24 may be determined by evaluating or considering one or more of parameters including resistance and impedance; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, evaluating resistance of a battery, to a known device, a controller, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., Providing a simple and direct indicator of the state of the battery [Chen, 0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have where the deterioration state of the battery is determined based on internal resistance of the battery in view of the teachings of Duan where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., Providing a simple and direct indicator of the state of the battery [Chen, 0015].
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20200094685A1) in view of Duan et al. (US20230094070A1) and Hanamura (JP2003274509A) and in further view of Reizo et al. (US20120004875A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 and does not teach the controller where internal resistance is calculated based on voltages and electric currents inputted into and outputted from the battery.
However, Reizo teaches a method of detecting temperature-related battery internal resistance from temperature, voltage and current [0001] where internal resistance is calculated based on voltages and electric currents [0037] inputted into and outputted from the battery [battery 1, Figure 2; 0033] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, calculating internal resistance from voltage and current, to a known device, a controller, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., Extending battery lifetime by first determining the degree of battery degradation [Reizo, 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have teach the controller where internal resistance is calculated based on voltages and electric currents inputted into and outputted from the battery in view of the teachings of Reizo where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., Extending battery lifetime by first determining the degree of battery degradation [Reizo, 0004].
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20200094685A1) in view of Duan et al. (US20230094070A1) and Hanamura (JP2003274509A) and in further view of Schwartz et al. (US20180209324A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the controller is configured to lower the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation [where a predefined limit value varies with temperature of coolant; 0004, refer to Duane as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above] and does not teach where the controller is configured to lower the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation when a grille shutter mounted on a vehicle is in a closed state.
However, Schwartz teaches power consumption control for vehicles with an active grille shutter (AGS) system [0001] where the controller [vehicle controllers 190, Figure 1] is configured to lower the temperature serving as the criterion [where controller 190 determines whether more airflow is needed based on a desired upper limit of temperature, Figure 1; 0036] for executing the output limitation [where power consumption is optimized for given airflow; 0026] when a grille shutter [grille shutter (AGS) system 140, Figure 1; 0022] mounted on a vehicle [vehicle 100, Figure 1] is in a closed state [where the AGS is 0% open, Figure 4] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., Extending battery life by optimizing actively adjusting power consumption to operational needs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have where the controller is configured to lower the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation when a grille shutter mounted on a vehicle is in a closed state in view of the teachings of Schwartz where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., Extending battery life by optimizing actively adjusting power consumption to operational needs.
Claim 6 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitation is “when a grille shutter mounted on a vehicle is in a closed state, the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation is lowered.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20200094685A1) in view of Duan et al. (US20230094070A1) and in further view of Tsukamoto et al. (US20210008982A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where a heat exchanger that exchanges heat with a refrigerant for a driver is disposed in a cooling circuit, in which the refrigerant flows, for the electric power converter, and while heat is exchanged by the heat exchanger, the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation is lowered.
However, Tsukamoto teaches a cooling device for an electric motor [0002] where a heat exchanger [heat exchanger 31, Figure 1] that exchanges heat with a refrigerant for a driver [where first refrigerant system S1 includes electric motor 11, Figure 1; 0026] is disposed in a cooling circuit [where a heat exchanger 31 is provided between the first refrigerant system S1 and the second refrigerant system S2, Figure 1; 0027], in which the refrigerant flows, for the electric power converter [where second refrigerant system includes inverter 21; 0026] and while heat is exchanged by the heat exchanger, the temperature serving as the criterion [determination temperature, Figure 2; 0042] for executing the output limitation [where the oil pump is drive is limited S105, Figure 4] is lowered [where the controller checks if cooling water in refrigerant system S2 is higher than high-temperature determination temperature Twhi and then checks if S2 is above a low-temperature determination temperature Twlw, Figure 4; 0066;0067] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., Minimizing damage to the system and preventing overheating through actively monitoring and adjusting cooling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have where a heat exchanger that exchanges heat with a refrigerant for a driver is disposed in a cooling circuit, in which the refrigerant flows, for the electric power converter, and while heat is exchanged by the heat exchanger, the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation is lowered in view of the teachings of Tsukamoto where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., Minimizing damage to the system and preventing overheating through actively monitoring and adjusting cooling.
Claim 7 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitation is “…while heat is exchanged by the heat exchanger, the temperature serving as the criterion for executing the output limitation is lowered.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the remarks filed 10/28/2025, Applicant preemptively argues in regards to amended claim 1 that Chen does not teach claim 1 as amended because Chen teaches output limitation of the power converter based on the coolant temperature whereas the claim recitation requires “a controller that executes output limitation of a voltage control unit (VCU) that controls electric power supplied to the power converter (PCU)…”. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the term power converter as disclosed in Chen refers to a variable voltage converter. Therefore, Chen teaches at least “a controller that executes output limitation of a voltage control unit (VCU) that controls electric power supplied to the power converter (PCU)”. Chen teaches the VCU, where variable voltage converter 21 boosts the voltage of battery 22 in Figure 1, and the PCU, where inverter 18 receives DC power and uses switches 26-48 to alternate the current. Chen teaches the controller that executes output limitation of the (VCU) where the controller 23 selectively activates switches 66,68 to permit power to flow from the DC bus, from the voltage converter 21, 0018. Refer to the updated claim mapping in rejection of claim 1 above. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that Chen and Duane, separate or in combination, do not disclose output limitation based on the coolant temperature of the voltage control unit (VCU). Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., output limitation based on the coolant temperature of the voltage control unit (VCU)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If Applicant is referring to the coolant temperature of the electric power converter recited in claim 1, line 3, then Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Applicant further argues on page 10 and 11, Vishnubhatla, Reizo, Schwartz and Tsukamoto do not disclose any content that supplements Chen and Duan that would lead to the invention of claim 1. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please refer to the discussion in regards to Chen above. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-7 except for their dependence upon claim 1. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763