DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claim 1-19 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claim 20 falls within category of process;
Regarding Claims 1-19
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of adjusting the allowable output.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. An electrified vehicle, comprising:
a battery including a plurality of cells; and
a controller controlling an output of the battery based on an allowable output of the battery, and
adjusting the allowable output when at least one of: (i) a first condition determined based on a continuous discharge amount until current of the battery changes from a first state to a second state and a preset first reference discharge amount, and (ii) a second condition determined based on a cell voltage deviation between the plurality of cells and a preset first reference deviation is satisfied..
The italicized limitations above represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “adjusting the allowable [..]a first condition [..]a second condition[..]” are mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and /or a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment).
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “a controller controlling an output of the battery based on an allowable output of the battery” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add post solution activity and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892). Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “An electrified vehicle, comprising: a battery including a plurality of cells;”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic battery components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. “An electrified vehicle, a battery including a plurality of cells; controller”, generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-19
Dependent claims 2-19 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-9 and 21 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-19 are combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment).
Claims 20
Claim 20 contains language similar to claims 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
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) 1-3, 8-9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. (US 2022/0271550) in view of Nakada (US 7,019,489).
Regarding Claims 1 and 20. Matsui teaches an electrified vehicle([0044]; C1: fig.1), comprising:
a battery (20: fig. 1) including a plurality of cells(100: fig.1); and
a controller (30: fig.1) controlling an output of the battery based on an allowable output of the battery(S117: fig. 19), and adjusting the allowable output when at least one of: (i) a first condition determined based on a continuous discharge amount until current of the battery changes from a first state to a second state and a preset first reference discharge amount(s116: fig. 19),
Matsui further teaches lower limit voltage and the estimated current are multiplied to calculate the allowable output at that time([0070]; fig.5).
Matsui silent about (ii) a second condition determined based on a cell voltage deviation between the plurality of cells and a preset first reference deviation is satisfied.
However, Nakada teaches a second condition determined based on a cell voltage deviation between the plurality of cells and a preset first reference deviation is satisfied(the pre-capacity adjustment voltage variance among the individual cells and the post-capacity adjustment voltage variance, manifesting when the bypass engaging voltage is set to a low value (3.4V): fig. 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Matsui, a second condition determined based on a cell voltage deviation between the plurality of cells and a preset first reference deviation is satisfied, as taught by Nakada, so as to selectively compensate load current fluctuations r by using an output from a power storage section.
Regarding Claim 2. Matsui further teaches the first condition is satisfied when the continuous discharge amount exceeds the first reference discharge amount(s116:-s117 fig. 19; [0106]).
Regarding Claim 3. Matsui further teaches the first state is defined as a state in which the current of the battery is equal to or more than a preset first value(s114: fig.19), and
the controller determines the continuous discharge amount by adding up a discharge amount of the battery in the first state(s115: fig.119; [0104]).
Regarding Claim 8. Nakada further teaches the second condition is satisfied, when the cell voltage deviation is equal to or more than the first reference deviation(3.6V: fig.6A-C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Matsui, the second condition is satisfied, when the cell voltage deviation is equal to or more than the first reference deviation, as taught by Nakada, so as to selectively compensate load current fluctuations r by using an output from a power storage section.
Regarding Claim 9. Nakada further teaches the second condition is satisfied, the controller adjusts the allowable output downward until the cell voltage deviation reaches the first reference deviation(3.9V: fig. 6A-C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Matsui, the second condition is satisfied, the controller adjusts the allowable output downward until the cell voltage deviation reaches the first reference deviation, as taught by Nakada, so as to selectively compensate load current fluctuations r by using an output from a power storage section.
Examiner Notes
Three is no prior art rejection over claims 4-7, 10-19, however there is 101 rejection. Closes prior arts fail to teach the limitations of, specifically claim 4 “the second state is defined as a state in which the current of the battery is less than a preset second value, and the controller initializes a summed continuous discharge amount when the battery current changes from the first state to the second state.”; claim 10:” controller maintains a lowered allowable output until the cell voltage deviation reaches a second reference deviation that is preset to a value less than the first reference deviation through the downward adjustment”; Claim 12:” the controller outputs information corresponding to failure of at least one of the plurality of cells, when the second condition is satisfied in a state where the SOC of the battery is equal to or more than the preset reference SOC”; Claim 14:” the controller adjusts the allowable output downward when at least one of the first condition, the second condition, and a third condition determined based on a lowest cell voltage that is a lowest voltage among voltages of the plurality of cells and a preset first reference voltage is satisfied.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 10840722 : disclose charging or discharging is continuously performed over a predetermined duration time with respect to the maximum allowable charge power and the maximum allowable discharge power which can be input and output during the calculated predetermined duration time, the value of the maximum allowable charge power or the maximum allowable discharge power communicated to a vehicle controller on the basis of the state of charge or discharge is reduced based on the time during which charging or discharging is actually continued.
b) US 20250206193: controlling a battery having a plurality of cells is executed by a processor. The method includes detecting voltages of the plurality of cells; calculating a voltage difference between a highest voltage and a lowest voltage of the plurality of cells based on the detected voltages; and executing an output restriction on the battery when the voltage difference is equal to or greater than a predetermined first voltage difference threshold value.
c) US 20130187611: disclose Cell voltage equalizer includes voltage detection ICs configured to measure output voltages from cells, respectively; discharge circuits (40) provided to the respective cells, and configured to discharge the output voltages from the respective cells; and a main microcomputer (33 configured: to find a state of charge of a rechargeable battery (13) on the basis of the output voltages from the cells measured by the voltage detection ICs; to judge whether or not the state of charge is a predetermined level; to find differential values by subtracting a predetermined baseline voltage from the output voltages from the cells measured by the voltage detection ICs; and to equalize the output voltages if there exists a cell whose differential value is not less than a first voltage threshold value, by use of the corresponding discharge circuit (40).
d) US 2022/0354751: disclose the processor 130 may set a target voltage to an output voltage of the sub-battery 50 when entering into the ISG. The processor 130 may determine whether a discharge current of the sub-battery 50 is less than a preset discharge upper limit (a discharge current upper limit). The processor 130 may set the discharge upper limit by making reference to the look-up table stored in the storage 120. The processor 130 may determine whether the target voltage is less than or equal to a first reference voltage, when the discharge current of the sub-battery 50 is less than the preset discharge upper limit. The processor 130 may maintain the target voltage when the target voltage is equal to or less than the first reference voltage. The processor 130 may regulate the target voltage to be lower when the target voltage is not equal to or less than the first reference voltage. The processor 130 may determine whether the target voltage exceeds a second reference voltage, when the discharge current of the sub-battery 50 is equal to or greater than the preset discharge upper limit. The processor 130 may maintain the target voltage when the target voltage exceeds the second reference voltage. The processor 130 may regulate the target voltage to be higher, when the target voltage does not exceed the second reference voltage. In the instant case, the first reference voltage and the second reference voltage may be previously defined by a system designer.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights