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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1,3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machine Translation of CN111645567A, hereinafter 567’, in view of Machine Translation of CN105196887, hereinafter 887’.
As to claims 1 and 17-19 , 567’ discloses in figure 1, a charging control method for a vehicle having an electric function, comprising: reading vehicle usage habit data of a user in preset time, the usage habit data comprising a charging time point of each charging [see page 2];
detecting a current remaining state of charge of the vehicle at a current moment [see page 2 of the translation] ; determining, based on the usage habit data, an estimated need state of charge of the vehicle; and determining, based on the estimated need state of charge and the current remaining state of charge, whether the vehicle needs charging [charging is intiaed or started based on state of charge; see page 2].
567’ does not disclose explicitly, usage data comprising driving mileage of each driving of the vehicle in the preset time.
878’ discloses in figure 1, usage data comprising driving mileage of each driving of the vehicle in the preset time [see pages 2, ¶001-002, and also page 3 steps S26-S36 on page 5].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to add vehicle mileage information in 587’s charging controller system as taught by 878’ so the charging control of the power battery to be further optimized.
As to claim 3, 567’ discloses in figure 1. wherein the determining, based on the estimated need state of charge and the current remaining state of charge, whether the vehicle needs charging comprises: determining, when the estimated need state of charge is greater than the current remaining state of charge, that the vehicle needs charging [the required power is greater than the current battery then determine the vehicle has a charging intention; see page 6].
As to claim 16, 567’ discloses in figure 1. wherein the determining, based on the estimated need state of charge and the current remaining state of charge, whether the vehicle needs charging comprises: determining, when the estimated need state of charge is less than or equal to the current remaining state of charge, that the vehicle does not need charging [charging [the required power is greater than the current battery then determine the vehicle has a charging intention; see page 6].
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 567’ in view of 878’, and in view of Crombez (US 2013/0015860), hereinafter Crombez.
As to claim 4, 567’ discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the charging control method further comprises: controlling the vehicle to be charged to a target state of charge, wherein the target state of charge is greater than or equal to the estimated need state of charge.
Crombez discloses in figure 3, wherein the charging control method further comprises: controlling the vehicle to be charged to a target state of charge [see figure 3, steps (56 and 60); charging is controlled based on SOC limit, such as Target SOC], wherein the target state of charge is greater than or equal to the estimated need state of charge [¶0042-0044].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to charge the battery of 567’s based on SOC Target limit as taught by Crombez in order to prolong battery life.
As to claim 5, 567’ in combination with Crombez discloses, wherein the controlling the vehicle to be charged to a target state of charge comprises: controlling, when the estimated need state of charge is greater than a first preset state of charge, the vehicle to be charged to a target state of charge that is equal to the estimated need state of charge; and controlling, when the estimated need state of charge is less than or equal to the first preset state of charge, the vehicle to be charged to a target state of charge that is equal to the first preset state of charge [Crombez discloses target SOC and controlling battery charging based on SOC].
As to claim 6, 567’ in combination with Crombez discloses, wherein the controlling the vehicle to be charged to a target state of charge comprises: controlling, when a sum of the estimated need state of charge and a second preset state of charge is greater than or equal to the first preset state of charge, the vehicle to be charged to a target state of charge that is equal to the sum of the estimated need state of charge and the second preset state of charge; and controlling, when the sum of the estimated need state of charge and the second preset state of charge is less than the first preset state of charge, the vehicle to be charged to a target state of charge that is equal to the first preset state of charge [Crombez discloses target SOC and controlling battery charging based on SOC].
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant’s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. Vehicle battery charging, state of charge, target state of charge, and etc. ) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As to claim 7, 567’ in combination with Crombez, wherein the determining, based on the estimated need state of charge and the current remaining state of charge, whether the vehicle needs charging comprises: determining, when the estimated need state of charge is less than or equal to the current remaining state of charge, and the current remaining state of charge is less than a third preset state of charge, that the vehicle needs charging; and controlling the vehicle to be charged to a target state of charge that is equal to the third preset state of charge; and determining, when the estimated need state of charge is less than or equal to the current remaining state of charge, and the current remaining state of charge is greater than or equal to the third preset state of charge, that the vehicle does not need charging[Crombez discloses target SOC and controlling battery charging based on SOC].
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant’s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. Vehicle battery charging, state of charge, target state of charge, and etc. ) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For Claim 2: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the determining estimated need state of charge of the vehicle based on the usage habit data comprises: obtaining a driving range N of the vehicle at full charge; determining, based on the usage habit data, a next charging moment after the current moment and total driving mileage M in a time period from the current moment to the next charging moment, wherein the total driving mileage M is a sum of all driving mileage in the time period from the current moment to the next charging moment; and determining the estimated need state of charge SOC1 based on the total driving mileage M and the driving range N, wherein SOC1=M/N*100%.
For Claim 8: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the usage habit data further comprises a driving time point of each driving in the preset time, and the method further comprises: determining, when it is determined that the vehicle needs charging, a next driving start moment after the current moment based on the driving time point of each driving; determining an interval between the current moment and the next driving start moment as first charging time; and determining a charging current based on the first charging time and a difference between the target state of charge and the current remaining state of charge.
For Claim 10: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the usage habit data further comprises a driving time point of each driving in the preset time, and the method further comprises: determining, when it is determined that the vehicle needs charging, a next driving start moment after the current moment based on the driving time point of each driving; determining an interval between the current moment and the next driving start moment as first charging time; and determining a charging current based on the first charging time and a difference between the target state of charge and the current remaining state of charge.
For Claim 11: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the determining a charging current based on the first charging time and a difference between the target state of charge and the current remaining state of charge comprises: determining, when the target state of charge is equal to the sum of the estimated need state of charge and the second preset state of charge, the charging current based on the first charging time and the difference between the target state of charge and the current remaining state of charge, wherein the difference between the target state of charge and the current remaining state of charge is the sum of the estimated need state of charge and the second preset state of charge minus the current remaining state of charge; and determining, when the target state of charge is equal to the first preset state of charge, the charging current based on the first charging time and a difference between the first preset state of charge and the current remaining state of charge.
For Claim 12: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the usage habit data further comprising a driving time point of each driving in the preset time, and the method further comprises: determining, when it is determined that the vehicle needs charging, a next driving start moment after the current moment based on the driving time point of each driving; determining second charging time based on a preset charging rate and a difference between the target state of charge and the current remaining state of charge, wherein the second charging time is less than an interval between the current moment and the next driving start moment; and determining a charging start moment based on the second charging time, wherein an interval between the charging start moment and the next driving start moment is the second charging time.
For Claim 14: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the usage habit data further comprises a driving time point of each driving in the preset time, and the method further comprises: determining, when it is determined that the vehicle needs charging, a next driving start moment after the current moment based on the driving time point of each driving.; determining second charging time based on a preset charging rate and a difference between the target state of charge and the current remaining state of charge, wherein the second charging time is less than an interval between the current moment and the next driving start moment; and determining a charging start moment based on the second charging time, wherein an interval between the charging start moment and the next driving start moment is the second charging time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yagi et al. (US 6,281,663) discloses Battery Charging Method.
Bito (US 2013/0200845) Chargin/Discharging Control Apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights