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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Vehicle Control System for Cooling Battery
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 4 of copending Application No. 18626521 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of Claims 1 and 3 of the reference application are the same scope as Claims 1, 2, and 5 of the instant application, with the exception that the reference application has a plurality of vehicles. Claim 4 of the instant application is essentially the same as Claim 4 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 4 of copending Application No. 18626521 in view of Lee et al (USPGPN 20180312076)
Lee teaches teach determine at the burden on the battery is greater as a traveled distance of the vehicle per a predetermined period is greater, a speed of the vehicle per the predetermined period is higher, or an accelerator operation amount of the vehicle per the predetermined period is greater (Fig. 4, s130 to s160 and ¶’s [71-76] has this determination, where predetermined period is at least one hour [i.e. kilometers per hour], see ¶[50] and table 1 between ¶’s [52, 53], where speed is a traveled distance of the vehicle per predetermined period, while the displayed speed on e.g. on odometer is the speed for the vehicle per the predetermined inherent refresh cycle period of the sensor/processor inherently displaying the speed set by the manufacturer, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands). ¶’s [10-13, esp. 13] describes that this operation is employed to reduce the cost of the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify reference application with Lee to provide reduced costs
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (USPGPN 20200290464)
Independent Claim 1, Oh discloses a vehicle control system (Figs. [1, 2, 7]), comprising:
a data collection unit (12, 13) configured to collect data on driving characteristics of a vehicle by a user (¶’s [45-48] describes vehicle speed, gradient being used to determine the load & whether in towing mode on a vehicle by a user/driver ¶’s [29, 38, 39]);
an analysis unit configured to analyze, using the collected data, a burden on a battery mounted on the vehicle (14, ¶’s [46-48], Fig. 6) that contributes to degradation of the battery (noted that any use of a vehicle at any temperature can contribute to the degradation of a battery, however, being above reference temperatures can cause degradation to be even worse, ¶’s [09, 12, 32, 35, 36, 58-63, 65] describes setting the reference temperature based upon the load); and
a control unit configured to cool the battery (¶’s [31, 58-63]) with a cooling intensity according to an analysis result (as the reference temperature to cool the battery at can be lowered based on the higher load [as demonstrated above], this means the cooling intensity is set according to the analysis result [i.e. in towing mode, cooling reference temperature is lowered, leading to increased cooling intensity], noted that this limitation is an intended use/capable-of/configure-to limitation, and even if Oh did not demonstrate the claimed limitation, Oh is certainly capable of performing the claimed feature).
Dependent Claim 2, Oh discloses the control unit is configured to increase the cooling intensity for the battery as the burden on the battery increases (as described for claim 1, as the cooling reference temperature is lowered due to the higher load/burden, one of ordinary skill in the art understands this would be equivalent to increasing the cooling intensity).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (USPGPN 20200290464) in view of Lee et al (USPGPN 20180312076)
Dependent Claim 3, Oh teaches the analysis unit is configured to determine that the burden on the battery (as described above for Claims 1 and 2).
Oh fails to explicitly teach determine at the burden on the battery is greater as a traveled distance of the vehicle per a predetermined period is greater, a speed of the vehicle per the predetermined period is higher, or an accelerator operation amount of the vehicle per the predetermined period is greater.
Lee teaches teach determine at the burden on the battery is greater as a traveled distance of the vehicle per a predetermined period is greater, a speed of the vehicle per the predetermined period is higher, or an accelerator operation amount of the vehicle per the predetermined period is greater (Fig. 4, s130 to s160 and ¶’s [71-76] has this determination, where predetermined period is at least one hour [i.e. kilometers per hour], see ¶[50] and table 1 between ¶’s [52, 53], where speed is a traveled distance of the vehicle per predetermined period, while the displayed speed on e.g. on odometer is the speed for the vehicle per the predetermined inherent refresh cycle period of the sensor/processor inherently displaying the speed set by the manufacturer, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands). ¶’s [10-13, esp. 13] describes that this operation is employed to reduce the cost of the system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh with Lee to provide reduced costs
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (USPGPN20200290464) in view of Kawahara et al (USPGPN 20110313613; hereinafter Kawa), Ozcelik et al (USPGPN 20230226948; hereinafter Ozce), and Takatsuji (USPGPN 20130297244; hereinafter Taka)
Dependent Claim 4, Oh teaches increasing the cooling intensity based upon the battery burden (as described above for claims 1 and 2).
Oh is silent to when the number of times is determined that the burden on the battery is great reaches a predetermined value, increase the cooling intensity and reduce an upper limit value of a current to be supplied to the battery during charging of the battery.
Taka teaches when the number of times the burden is great [electric current above threshold] and the temperature is above a threshold (¶’s [82-85, esp. 83], it is used to determine the deterioration of the battery, see analogous system of Fig. 1 which shows temperature sensors). Taka teaches this determination provides improved accuracy (¶[29])
Kawa teaches deterioration/degradation/state-of-health[SOH] is used to determine to reduce the maximum discharge/charge current as it gets worse (¶[34], analogous structure in Figs. [1-3], analogous cooling operation in ¶’s [80, 90], ¶’s [08, 34] describes this operations provides optimal charging [further, official notice taken that one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by reducing the current limit, it can suppress further degradation of the battery, and thus extend the lifetime of the battery])
Ozce teaches SOH of a battery is used to determine whether to increase cooling amounts in order to slow down aging/extend battery lifetime (analogous Figs. [1-3b], ¶’s [71, 96]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh with Kawa, Ozce, and Taka to provide improved accuracy, optimal operation, and extended battery lifetime. Oh is modified by Taka to determine the more accurate SOH based upon the number of times the temperature and load/discharge currents exceed a threshold. This SOH is further used to determine the cooling intensity (Ozce) and the maximum charging current limit (Kawa) to optimally extend the lifetime of the vehicle’s battery.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (USPGPN 20200290464) in view of Carpenter et al (USPGPN 20140062228; hereinafter Carp)
Dependent Claim 5, Oh teaches performing the analysis result.
Oh is silent to a battery mounted on a vehicle of the user different from the vehicle is cooled with the cooling intensity according to the analysis result.
Carp teaches a test vehicle which has past analyzed data from a vehicle of a different user [test vehicle] used to determine the cooling intensity for a present vehicle (i.e. equivalent to a battery mounted on a vehicle of the user different from the vehicle is cooled with the cooling intensity according to the analysis result, ¶[51],
analogous structure in Figs. [1, 2], see ¶’s [39, 40, 45-47, 53, 55] for analogous description of cooling battery;
official notice taken that one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by relying upon previously determined data, i.e. from the test vehicle, to determine cooling, it can reduce the complexity of the processor [processing does not need to be as complex] and improve the computational efficiency on the second vehicle [i.e. why to have stored look-up data/tables]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh with Carp to provide improved efficiency and simplicity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights