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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kishiyama et al. U.S. PGPub 2011/0156652.
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) 1-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishiyama et al. U.S. PGPub 2011/0156652 (hereinafter “Kishiyama”) in view of Sampson et al. U.S. PGPub 2021/0094441 (hereinafter “Sampson”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kishiyama discloses a computer system comprising a processor device (e.g. ¶20-24, 35-38, 49 and 72-73; Fig. 1) configured to: determine, by a processor device of a computer system, a level of ECO-driving (e.g. selecting drive range mode/storage mode) of a vehicle (e.g. ¶20-24, 61-65 and 68-71); determine, by the processor device, a level of battery aging of an energy storage system (e.g. battery age/wherein increase range window indicates level of battery aging) of the vehicle, wherein said determination is based on a battery model (i.e. algorithm for calculating battery age/range window) (e.g. ¶20-24, 50, 52 and 54-70); determine, by the processor device, a maximum allowable charging condition (e.g. battery cell capacity) of the energy storage system, wherein the determination is based on the level of ECO-driving and the level of aging of the energy storage system (e.g. ¶20, 34, 50, 52, 54-56 and 66); and control the charging of the energy storage system based on the maximum allowable charging condition in order to control the aging of the energy storage system (e.g. ¶20-24, 34, 39, 45, 52 and 54-70). Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kishiyama discloses the system implemented on a vehicle, but not explicitly a heavy-duty vehicle. Regarding claim 14, Kishiyama discloses charging a battery, but does not explicitly disclose charging the battery with a charging station.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Sampson discloses a heavy-duty vehicle (e.g. truck) powered by a battery (e.g. ¶87). Regarding claim 14, Sampson discloses charging an energy storage system using a charging station to provide power to the energy storage system (e.g. ¶32 and 41).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Kishiyama’s charging system for a battery powered truck comprising battery packs and powering the electric vehicle at a charging station. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to increase the lifespan of the battery of a heavy-duty electric vehicle and provide an additional way of charging the electric vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kishiyama with Sampson to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1-20.
Regarding claim 3, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the maximum allowable charging condition of the energy storage system comprises the maximum allowable charging power of the energy storage system and/or a minimum allowable charging time of the energy storage system (e.g. ¶20, 34, 50, 52, 54-56 and 66).
Regarding claim 4, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the battery model is at least obtained in dependence of historical data of the usage of the energy storage system (e.g. ¶41, 44, 48 and 50)and/or statistical data of the usage of the energy storage system (e.g. ¶37).
Regarding claim 5, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the battery model comprises data relating to health information of the energy storage system, and/or charging information of the energy storage system (e.g. ¶20, 34, 50, 52, 54-56 and 66).
Regarding claim 6, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the battery model is continuously updated (e.g. ¶20, 34, 50, 52, 54-56 and 66; Fig. 4-5, wherein age determination updates over time).
Regarding claim 7, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the level of ECO-driving is based on an ECO-driving model (e.g. ¶20-24, 61-65 and 68-71), said ECO-driving model is at least obtained in dependence of historical data (e.g. battery history of use) and/or statistical data of the travelled route of the vehicle (e.g. ¶37, 41, 44, 48 and 50).
Regarding claim 8, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the ECO-driving model comprises data relating to road information, vehicle information and/or driving information of the travelled route of the vehicle (e.g. ¶20, 34, 50, 52, 54-56 and 66).
Regarding claim 9, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the ECO-driving model comprises information relating to one or more of: the number of sudden accelerations of the vehicle, number of sudden decelerations of the vehicle, frequency of sudden accelerations of the vehicle, frequency of sudden decelerations of the vehicle, sudden stop of the vehicle, and speed of the vehicle (e.g. ¶37).
Regarding claim 10, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the ECO-driving model is continuously updated (via updated history data) (e.g. ¶37, 41, 44, 48 and 50).
Regarding claim 11, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the determination of the maximum allowable charging condition of the energy storage system is determined so that a constant aging of the energy storage system is achieved (e.g. ¶20, 34, 50, 52, 54-56 and 66; Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the determination of the maximum allowable charging condition of the energy storage system is determined so that a high level of ECO-driving results in a high maximum allowable charging condition and that a low level of ECO-driving results in a low maximum allowable charging condition (e.g. ¶20, 34, 50, 52, 54-56 and 66).
Regarding claim 13, Kishiyama discloses a vehicle battery that comprises at least one battery pack, the at least one battery pack comprises at least two battery modules, and wherein said at least two battery modules each comprises at least two battery cells (e.g. ¶11-14, 20-24 and 36).
Regarding claim 15, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein controlling the charging of the energy storage system is performed by instructing a battery management system (e.g. ECU) to allow power to the energy storage system (e.g. ¶20-24, 34, 39, 45, 52 and 54-70).
Regarding claim 16, Kishiyama discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the battery model is based on received sensor data from a battery management system (e.g. ¶20, 34, 50, 52, 54-56 and 66).
Regarding claim 17, Kishiyama discloses an electric heavy-duty vehicle comprising a processing device configured to perform the method according to claim 2 (e.g. ¶20-24, 35-38, 49 and 72-73; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kishiyama discloses a control system comprising one or more control units configured to perform the method according to claim 2 (e.g. ¶20-24, 35-38, 49 and 72-73; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Kishiyama discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform the method of claim 2 (e.g. ¶20-24, 35-38, 49 and 72-73; Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
CK
September 2, 2026
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights