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 filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, applicant’s amendments in large measure overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), with remaining issues (e.g., in claim 10, line 1) and new issues dealt with below.
In this respect, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is being as to claims 10 and 18, which apparently now (only) recite limitations that are already included in the amended base claims.
Second, applicant’s amendments to the claims and convincing arguments patentably distinguish the claims over the previously applied prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn, with new rejections being instituted herein below based mostly on newly cited art, as detailed below.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the scopes of amended claims 13 and 14, the examiner understands that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language consistent with the specification is that it is the charging of the traction battery with power (and not, as might be permitted by the claim language but is not the broadest reasonable interpretation, both the discharge of power from the traction battery “and” the charging of the traction battery with power) that is recited as being ”according to a/the power capability” that corresponds to the time period (and that the claimed charging of the traction battery with power is no longer according to any power capability “parameter”). Should applicant disagree with the examiner’s interpretation, suitable amendments to change the examiner’s interpretation might be made, and may be discussed with the examiner. See MPEP 2111.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 to 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 10, line 1, and in claim 11, line 1, “the time period” has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear (e.g., is this referring back to the “predefined time period” in claim 8, line 3, or to the “time period that is based on . . .” in claim 8, line 5?)
In claim 13, lines 6ff, “a power capability that corresponds to a time period that is selected by the controller” (e.g., as amended) is indefinite and unclear in the claim context and from the teachings of the specification because it is (now) unclear whether the controller selects i) the power capability that corresponds to the time period or ii) the time period. For example, see the published abstract where the controller selects the time period and published paragraph [0056] where the controller selects the power capability of a specified length of time. See also MPEP 2173.02, I., “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
In claim 14, lines 3ff, “the power capability that corresponds to a predefined time period” is unclear with insufficient antecedent basis, since the power capability of claim 13 corresponds to a time period that is selected by the controller and therefore does not apparently (also) correspond to the predefined (or “default, in the specification) time period.
In claim 15, line 1, “the time period” has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear, as two time periods are previously recited. Moreover, the phrase (in lines1ff of claim 15) that the time period is less than the predefined time period does not provide clarifying context (cf. claim 12, where the same phrase does), because this phrase apparently (unclearly) contradicts claim 14.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation, “the time period is [further] based on the temperature” has already been recited in claim 8 from which claim 10 depends. The limitation, “the time period is based on a state of charge of the traction battery” has already been recited in claim 13 from which claim 18 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 6 to 8, and 10 to 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (P.C.T. WO 2023/105760; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Payne et al. (2015/0274028).
Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) reveals:
per claim 1, a vehicle power system [e.g., FIG. 1] comprising:
a traction battery [e.g., 6]; and
a controller [e.g., 7-9; e.g., paragraphs [0016], etc.] programmed to
discharge power from the traction battery at a first instance [e.g., after time T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)] according to a value of power capability corresponding to a predefined time period [e.g., the value of the long-term (or long-time) SOP, as shown in FIG. 2[1], wherein the long-term SOP is a battery output that is intended to be used for a relatively long period of time (e.g., several tens of seconds or more), and can be understood as a parameter corresponding to the rated output of a typical battery 6 (e.g., paragraphs [0017], etc.), as a maximum value of power [kW] that can be drawn from the battery], and
discharge power from the traction battery at a second instance [e.g., before time T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)], in response to an expected vehicle operation [e.g., the time when the accelerator pedal is pressed or the engine starts, at paragraph [0027], and the generator 3 is obviously expected to begin/continue generating electricity, for a short duration (e.g., before T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)) or for a long duration (e.g., after T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)) as vehicle operation, as a result of the accelerator operation], according to a value of the power capability corresponding to a shortened time period that is specified by the controller and that varies based on the expected vehicle operation [e.g., the value of the short-term (or short-time) SOP as the “power capability”, as shown in FIG. 2, wherein the short-term SOP is the maximum value of power [kW] that can be drawn from the battery 6 to drive the motor 4 for a predetermined short period of time (a few seconds, paragraphs [0017], etc.), wherein the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1 (paragraphs [0018], etc.), where the operating state of the battery includes, “(state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”], wherein the value is negatively correlated to a duration of the expected vehicle operation [e.g., for example, the duration of the (long-term acceleration) operation after time T2 is obviously longer than the (short-term) operation before T2, and the value of the long-term SOP is set to be smaller than the value of the long-term SOP (e.g., see paragraphs [0017], FIGS. 2(A) to 4(B)[2], etc.];
While the examiner believes that Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) fairly reveals or renders obvious all limitations in the claim, it may be alleged that he does not expressly reveal that the value is negatively correlated to a duration of the expected vehicle operation.
However, in the context/field of an improved adaptive battery charge and discharge rates on route segments (FIG. 2), Payne et al. (‘028) teaches in conjunction with FIG. 3 that, in order to satisfy battery protection requirements, when the time of high power demand (for a vehicle operation, e.g., acceleration in FIG. 2, see paragraph [0006]) is long (“C”), a lowest maximum discharge rate limit is used for the battery, when the time of high power demand is short (“A”), a highest maximum discharge rate limit is used for the battery, and when the time (“B”) for high power demand is in between the times represented by “A” and “C”, then a maximum discharge rate limit between that used for “A” and “C” is used, clearly showing the negative correlation between maximum value and operation time. Payne et al. (‘028) similarly teaches using adaptive charge rate limits when regenerative braking is to be performed on declines for long and/or short periods of time (e.g., paragraphs [0050], [0063], [0066], [0068], [0070], [0088], at segment S4 in FIG. 4B, etc.), in order to allow the battery 104 to gain as much charge as possible and still satisfy the battery protection requirements
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further the Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) control device and method for a hybrid vehicle so that vehicle operations on route segments including vehicle acceleration for a short/acceleration time and regenerative braking (for charging the battery) for a short/deceleration time (e.g., in addition to engine starting) would have been performed, as taught by Payne et al. (‘028), and so that the maximum discharge and charge rate limits would have been set (as short-term SOPs in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760)) in accordance with respective times of vehicle operations, as taught by Payne et al. (‘028) in FIG. 3 and such as for segment S4 in FIG. 4B, etc. so that the values/magnitudes of the set discharge and charge power limits for short-time operations (e.g., short times for acceleration/deceleration, etc.), as the short-term SOPs, would have been negatively correlated with the length of the short time, as taught e.g., in conjunction with FIG. 3 in Payne et al. (‘028), in order that the battery would not exceed hardware protection limits, as taught by Payne et al. (‘028), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) control device and method for a hybrid vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a vehicle power system [e.g., FIG. 1 in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760)] comprising:
a traction battery [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), the battery 6]; and
a controller [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), 7-9; e.g., paragraphs [0016], etc.] programmed to
discharge power from the traction battery at a first instance [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), after time T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)] according to a value of power capability corresponding to a predefined time period [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), the value of the long-term (or long-time) SOP, as shown in FIG. 2], wherein the long-term SOP is a battery output that is intended to be used for a relatively long period of time (e.g., several tens of seconds or more), and can be understood as a parameter corresponding to the rated output of a typical battery 6 (e.g., paragraphs [0017], etc.), as a maximum value of power [kW] that can be drawn from the battery], and
discharge power from the traction battery at a second instance [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), before time T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)], in response to an expected vehicle operation [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), the time when the accelerator pedal is pressed or the engine starts, at paragraph [0027], and the generator 3 is obviously expected to begin/continue generating electricity, for a short duration (e.g., before T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)) or for a long duration (e.g., after T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)) as vehicle operation, as a result of the accelerator operation; and in Payne(‘028), the acceleration and/or regenerative braking (expected) on the route segments], according to a value of the power capability corresponding to a shortened time period that is specified by the controller and that varies based on the expected vehicle operation [e.g., in Payne et al. (‘028), as shown and described in conjunction with FIG. 3 and with respect to the charge and discharge rate limits; and in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), the value of the short-term (or short-time) SOP as the “power capability”, as shown in FIG. 2, wherein the short-term SOP is the maximum value of power [kW] that can be drawn from the battery 6 to drive the motor 4 for a predetermined short period of time (a few seconds, paragraphs [0017], etc.), wherein the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1 (paragraphs [0018], etc.), where the operating state of the battery includes, “(state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”], wherein the value is negatively correlated to a duration of the expected vehicle operation [e.g., e.g., in Payne et al. (‘028), as shown and described in conjunction with FIG. 3 and with respect to the charge and discharge rate limits; and in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), for example, the duration of the (long-term acceleration) operation after time T2 is obviously longer than the (short-term) operation before T2, and the value of the long-term SOP is set to be smaller than the value of the long-term SOP (e.g., see paragraphs [0017][3], FIGS. 2(A) to 4(B), etc.];
per claim 6, depending from claim 1, wherein the shortened time period is based on temperature data of the traction battery [e.g., paragraph [0018] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), “Similarly, the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1”, in which, “the operating state of the battery 6 (state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”];
per claim 7, depending from claim 1, wherein the shortened time period is based on a state of charge of the traction battery [e.g., paragraph [0018] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), “Similarly, the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1”, in which, “the operating state of the battery 6 (state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”];
per claim 8, a method comprising:
discharging power from a traction battery [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), after time T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)] according to a value of a power capability that corresponds to a predefined time period [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), the value of the long-term (or long-time) SOP, as shown in FIG. 2], wherein the long-term SOP is a battery output that is intended to be used for a relatively long period of time (e.g., several tens of seconds or more), and can be understood as a parameter corresponding to the rated output of a typical battery 6 (e.g., paragraphs [0017], etc.), as a maximum value of power [kW] that can be drawn from the battery]; and
discharging power from the traction battery [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), before time T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)] according to a value of the power capability that corresponds to a time period [e.g., in Payne et al. (‘028), as shown and described in conjunction with FIG. 3 and with respect to the charge and discharge rate limits; and in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), the value of the short-term (or short-time) SOP as the “power capability”, as shown in FIG. 2, wherein the short-term SOP is the maximum value of power [kW] that can be drawn from the battery 6 to drive the motor 4 for a predetermined short period of time (a few seconds, paragraphs [0017], etc.), wherein the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1 (paragraphs [0018], etc.), where the operating state of the battery includes, “(state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”] that is based on an expected duration of a vehicle operation [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), the time when the accelerator pedal is pressed or the engine starts, at paragraph [0027], and the generator 3 is obviously expected to begin/continue generating electricity, for a short duration (e.g., before T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)) or for a long duration (e.g., after T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B)) as vehicle operation, as a result of the accelerator operation; and in Payne(‘028), the acceleration and/or regenerative braking (expected) on the route segments] and a temperature of the traction battery [e.g., paragraph [0018] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), “Similarly, the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1”, in which, “the operating state of the battery 6 (state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”];
per claim 10, depending from claim 8, wherein the time period is further based on the temperature [e.g., paragraph [0018] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), “Similarly, the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1”, in which, “the operating state of the battery 6 (state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”];
per claim 11, depending from claim 8, wherein the time period is further based on a state of charge of the traction battery [e.g., paragraph [0018] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), “Similarly, the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1”, in which, “the operating state of the battery 6 (state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”];
per claim 12, depending from claim 8, wherein the time period is less than the predefined time period [e.g., paragraph [0017] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), “The time scale (degree of duration) for which a short-duration SOP can be used is, for example, a few seconds. In contrast, the long-duration SOP is a battery output that is intended to be used for a relatively long period of time (e.g., several tens of seconds or more), exceeding the predetermined time mentioned above, and its value is set to be smaller than that of the short-duration SOP”; see also FIG. 3 and the corresponding description in Payne et al. (‘028)];
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (P.C.T. WO 2023/105760; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Payne et al. (2015/0274028) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kikuchi (2009/0266631; cited previously).
Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) as implemented or modified in view of Payne et al. (‘028) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) control device and method for a hybrid vehicle may not expressly reveal that the expected vehicle operation is starting the engine by operating an electric machine, although Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) suggests the operation occurs at a time when the engine starts at paragraph [0027], and the examiner understands that it would have been patently obvious to start the engine with an electrical machine, to one of ordinary skill in the art, even without further teaching.
However, in the context/field of improved charge/discharge control in an electric powered vehicle, Kikuchi (‘631) teaches at paragraphs [0062]ff and at S150, S170, S180, etc. in FIG. 3, and similarly in FIG. 5, that a not normal[4] (i.e., large) discharge request may be made (S150, NO), for example, when MG(1) starts the engine or when a large output (commanded by the accelerator pedal being manipulated) from MG(2) is requested, and when the not normal request is made, a temporary relaxation of the discharge electric power permissible value Wout is made during a limitation relaxed period Δt, in order to ensure battery/vehicle performance(e.g., during engine starting) with the relaxed level of discharge power while preventing an output voltage of battery 220 for running (power storage device) from decreasing below a lower limit voltage.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) control device and method for a hybrid vehicle so that the expected vehicle operation would have included not only acceleration as taught by Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) (and e.g., deceleration as taught by Payne et al. (‘028)) by also the use of a motor (3) to start the engine (2), as taught by Kikuchi (‘631), with the relaxed discharge electric power permissible value Wout for Δt as taught e.g., at S180, S185 by Kikuchi (‘631) being implemented in/by/with the short-term SOP taught by Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), in order to ensure battery/vehicle performance (e.g., during engine starting) with the relaxed level of discharge power while preventing an output voltage of battery 220 for running (power storage device) from decreasing below a lower limit voltage, as taught by Kikuchi (‘631), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) control device and method for a hybrid vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 5, depending from claim 1,wherein the expected vehicle operation is operating an electric machine to start an engine [e.g., as taught at S180, S185, paragraphs [0062], [0070], [0085], etc. in Kikuchi (‘631); and as taught at paragraphs [0027], [0028], etc. in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760)];
per claim 9, depending from claim 8, wherein the vehicle operation is starting an engine with an electric machine [e.g., e.g., as taught at S180, S185, paragraphs [0062], [0070], [0085], etc. in Kikuchi (‘631); and as taught at paragraphs [0027], [0028], etc. in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760)];
Claims 13 to 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (P.C.T. WO 2023/105760; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Payne et al. (2015/0274028) as applied, for example, to claims 1, 7, 8, and 11 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (2025/0214445).
Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) as implemented or modified in view of Payne et al. (‘028) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) control device and method for a hybrid vehicle may not expressly reveal that, in the charging operation of the traction battery, a power capability that corresponds to a time period or (now) the time period is selected by the controller and based on e.g., a state of charge of the traction battery.
However, in the context/field of improved and commonly-assigned control device for an electric vehicle that also uses the short time and long time SOPs, Tanaka et al. (‘445) teaches in conjunction with FIGS. 2, 4, etc. that the SOPs are used for charging control of the battery as setting a short time chargeable maximum power (to the battery 3) e.g., during a time C (and/or B) of a regenerative braking operation (FIG. 2). In particular, at Step A6, the control device 10 selects the short time SOP (as a power capability). Moreover, he teaches at paragraphs [0025] and [0035] that the “the predetermined time C may be a fixed value set in advance, or may be a variable value set according to the operation state of the battery 3 or the traveling state of the vehicle 1”, where the operation state of the battery includes “(the state of charge SOC, the state of health SOH, a regeneration current amount, the battery voltage, the battery temperature, and the like)”, and “the time B until the start of the transition calculation from the start of the regeneration power generation may be a fixed value (for example, several seconds) set in advance, or may be a variable value set according to the operation state (the state of charge SOC, the state of health SOH, the regeneration current amount, the battery voltage, the battery temperature, and the like) of the battery 3 or the traveling state (the traveling mode, the vehicle speed, the outside air temperature, the accelerator opening degree, and the like) of the vehicle 1.”
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) control device and method for a hybrid vehicle so that the short-term (short time) SOP would have additionally been used during regenerative braking for charging control of the battery, as taught by Tanaka et al. (‘445) and as suggested by both Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) and Payne et al. (‘028) at segment S4 in FIG. 4B as detailed above, with the short times (e.g., B and/or C in Tanaka et al. (‘445)) using the short-term (short time) SOP being made to be variable (e.g., in time) according to the battery SOC and temperature and being selected by the controller during regenerative braking as taught by Tanaka et al. (‘445), in order to control charging of the battery and increase the regeneration power from the motor while satisfying an electrodeposition protection requirement of the battery, as taught by Tanaka et al. (‘445), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760) control device and method for a hybrid vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 13, a vehicle comprising:
an[5] electric machine [e.g., 3, 4 in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760)]];
a traction battery [e.g., 6 in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760)]; and
a controller [e.g., 7-9 in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760); and 106, 108, etc. in Payne et al. (‘028)] programmed to discharge power from the traction battery to the electric machine [e.g., as shown and described with respect to FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B) in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760); and FIGS. 3, 4B, etc. in Payne et al. (‘028)] and to charge the traction battery with power from the electric machine [e.g., at Step A10 in FIG. 4 of Tanaka et al. (‘445); at paragraph [0012] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), “Motor 4 is a motor-generator (electric motor and generator) that combines the function of driving the vehicle 1 using battery power stored in battery 6 and power generated by generator 3, and the function of charging battery 6 with power generated by regenerative power generation”; and as shown and described with respect to the adaptive battery charge rate limits used e.g., in conjunction with segment S4 in FIG. 4B of Payne et al. (‘028); see e.g., paragraphs [0050], [0063], [0066], [0068], [0070], [0088], etc. in Payne et al. (‘028)] according to a power capability that corresponds to a time period [e.g., the time (e.g., B, C) using the short time SOP (as the “power capability that corresponds to a time period”) during the regenerative braking in Tanaka et al. (‘445) e.g., in FIG. 2; and for the short-term SOP in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760); and for the segment S4 in Payne et al. (‘028), with time periods for segments shown in FIG. 3, and as described at paragraphs [0050], etc., “For example, a CPU module 106 may only allow the battery 104 to charge at a certain rate because rapid increase of SOC over a long period of time may be hazardous to the battery 104, for example, by causing overheating. However, if the CPU module 106 determined that a very rapid but short in duration decline was approaching, the CPU module 106 may allow the battery 104 to increase in SOC at a faster limit.”] that is selected by the controller [e.g., as shown e.g., at Step A6 in FIG. 4 of Tanaka et al. (‘445); and at paragraph [0068] in Payne et al. (‘028), “Also illustrated, the maximum charge limit of the battery 104 has increased during segment S4, the off-ramp segment, to +0.03%/s from +0.01%/s. The CPU module 106 may have determined that, for the length of the off-ramp, the amount of available energy, the current state of the battery, etc., the battery 104 may charge at a rate of +0.03%/s and not depart from the battery hardware protection limits. However, +0.03%/s may be the maximum charge rate which can be utilized for this segment, such that the maximum amount of energy is gained without damage to the battery 104”; and similarly in conjunction with FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B) in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760)] and based on a state of charge of the traction battery [e.g., as taught at paragraphs [0025], [0035], etc. in Tanaka et al. (‘445); and similarly at paragraph [0018] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760)];
per claim 14, depending from claim 13, wherein the controller is further programmed to discharge power from the traction battery to the electric machine [e.g., in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), before time T2 in FIGS. 3(A) to 4(B); and in FIG. 3 of Payne et al. (‘028)] and to charge the traction battery with power from the electric machine according to the power capability that corresponds to a predefined time period [e.g., according to the long-term (or short-term) SOP in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760); and according to the short time SOP in Tanaka et al. (‘445); and as shown in FIG. 3 of Payne et al. (‘028)];
per claim 15, depending from claim 14, wherein the time period is less than the predefined time period [e.g., paragraph [0018] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), “Similarly, the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1”, in which, “the operating state of the battery 6 (state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”; and similarly regarding the short time and long time SOPs in Tanaka et al. (‘445)];
per claim 16, depending from claim 14, wherein the power capability that corresponds to the predefined time period is less than the power capability that corresponds to the time period [e.g., as shown in FIG. 2 of Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), and as described at paragraph [0017], “The time scale (degree of duration) for which a short-duration SOP can be used is, for example, a few seconds. In contrast, the long-duration SOP is a battery output that is intended to be used for a relatively long period of time (e.g., several tens of seconds or more), exceeding the predetermined time mentioned above, and its value is set to be smaller than that of the short-duration SOP”; see also FIG. 3 and the corresponding description in Payne et al. (‘028); and FIG. 2 in Tanaka et al. (‘445)];
per claim 17, depending from claim 13, wherein the time period selected by the controller is based on temperature data of the traction battery [e.g., paragraph [0018] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), “Similarly, the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1”, in which, “the operating state of the battery 6 (state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”; see also paragraphs [0025], [0035] in Tanaka et al. (‘445)];
per claim 18, depending from claim 13, wherein the time period is based on a state of charge of the traction battery [e.g., paragraph [0018] in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), “Similarly, the predetermined time during which the SOP can be used for a short period of time may be a fixed value set in advance, or a variable value set according to the operating state of the battery 6 and the driving state of the vehicle 1”, in which, “the operating state of the battery 6 (state of charge (SOC), state of health (SOH), input/output current, voltage, temperature, etc.)”; see also paragraphs [0025], [0035] in Tanaka et al. (‘445)];
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example only, Kawabata et al. (Japan, 2002-58113; EPO machine translation attached) reveals a hybrid vehicle in which an outputtable time Δt (e.g., FIG. 6) during which the battery power output may exceed (and is capable of exceeding) the steady state rated output of the battery (dashed line in FIG. 4) is computed in accordance with both the state of charge (SOC) of the battery (FIG. 3) and the temperature of the battery (FIG. 5). Note that FIG. 4 shows, at the solid line, the instantaneous maximum battery output as a function of discharge time.
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 David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 The examiner provides below/on the next page the Google translation of the legends in FIG. 2 of Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), obtained from Google Translate (Image):
PNG
media_image1.png
792
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2 For example only, the examiner provides below/on the next page the Google translation of the legends in FIGS. 3(A) and 3(C) in Hayashi et al. (WO, ‘760), obtained from Google Translate (Image):
PNG
media_image2.png
1342
916
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3 Quoting paragraph [0017], “The time scale (degree of duration) for which a short-duration SOP can be used is, for example, a few seconds. In contrast, the long-duration SOP is a battery output that is intended to be used for a relatively long period of time (e.g., several tens of seconds or more), exceeding the predetermined time mentioned above, and its value is set to be smaller than that of the short-duration SOP.”
4 Quoting paragraph [0062], the not normal request is “when a discharge request made by the load to the battery is large, namely, in a circumstance where electric power output from battery 220 for running is desired to be temporarily increased relative to that in a normal state”.
5 It has been established that “[a]s a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It has also been held that “[t]he exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Prosecution Insights