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 § 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.
Claims 1-12 and 26 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.
Claim limitations “capacity estimation unit” “characteristic information unit”, “mode determination unit”, “power value acquisition unit”, “condition acquisition unit” and “discharge schedule generation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the disclosure paragraph 0313 ties the capacity estimation device to a personal computer, however the personal computer is also tied to the information estimation device (paragraph 0314) and again as the mode determination unit (paragraph 0321) and other of the recited “units”. In this instance unit is a nonce term as no structural components here are recited in the claims. A computer with a general purpose processor is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. [AltContent: rect]
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20190317150).
With respect to claim 1 Park teaches a battery capacity estimation device (seen best in Fig. 2) that estimates battery capacity of a storage battery (10), the battery capacity estimation device comprising:
a characteristic information acquisition unit (see 140/110) configured to acquire charge characteristic information of the storage battery in which at least one of a charge current, a charge voltage (item 140 acquires charging voltage information paragraph 0064), or a charge power for charging the storage battery is associated (paragraph 0070-74 voltage measurements are associated with the battery capacity see relationships in Fig. 4-5) with the battery capacity; and
a capacity estimation unit (see 160: paragraph 0059) configured to perform an estimation process of outputting power of a first output power value (see power profile paragraph 0044) to the storage battery over a predetermined time (see for example paragraph 45 or 75) necessary for estimating the battery capacity to perform first charging (paragraph 0043-44) and estimating the battery capacity on a basis of at least the first output power value (paragraph 0065-75).
With respect to claim 2 Park teaches the characteristic information acquisition unit acquires first charge characteristic information that is the charge characteristic information in which the charge voltage (see reference data stored in 110 in connection with 140) and the battery capacity are associated with (paragraph 0070-75) each other when the charge current is held at a predetermined current value (see 1C charging segment constant current interval see paragraph 0044-47, 66), and the capacity estimation unit performs a first estimation process of estimating the battery capacity on a basis of the first output power value, the predetermined current value, and the first charge characteristic information (see 160 comparing acquired voltage with stored data).
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 4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190317150) in view of Toshino et al. (JP 2007205880).
With respect to claim 4 and 6 Park teaches the characteristic information acquisition unit acquires second charge characteristic information (paragraph 0057) that is the charge characteristic information in which the charge current and the battery capacity are associated with each other however does not teach when the charge voltage is held at a predetermined voltage value, and the capacity estimation unit performs a second estimation process of estimating the battery capacity on a basis of the first output power value, the predetermined voltage value, and the second charge characteristic information. Toshino teaches (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 24) when the charge voltage is held at a predetermined voltage value, and the capacity estimation unit performs a second estimation process of estimating the battery capacity on a basis of the first output power value, the predetermined voltage value, and the second charge characteristic information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Park to include the estimation when held at a predetermined voltage for the benefit performing a known CC-CV charge process to charge and maintain a battery efficiently.
With respect to claim 10 Park teaches a characteristic identification information acquisition unit configured to acquire characteristic identification information associated with each of a plurality of pieces of the charge characteristic information (see stored information in charging models), however does not teach wherein the characteristic information acquisition unit acquires the charge characteristic information specified by the characteristic identification information. Toshino teaches (paragraph 0039) the known use of information associated with each of a plurality of pieces of the charge characteristic information (see battery measurements input via 14), wherein the characteristic information acquisition unit acquires the charge characteristic information (see estimation tables stored in 15 and calculation unit 16) specified by the characteristic identification information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Park to acquire information as seen in Toshino for the benefit of using reference characteristics unique to specific battery type.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190317150) in view of Paul et al. (US20120245750)
With respect to claim 11 Park teaches the characteristic and capacity units as detailed above with respect to claim 1 however does not teach a condition acquisition unit and scheduling unit. Paul teaches (paragraph 24, 0028-31) the use of a condition acquisition unit configured to acquire a condition (see arrival/departure time) related to a charge time for charging the storage battery and/or a condition including a target power (grid availability: paragraph 00057) to be a target during charging; and a charge schedule generation unit configured to generate a charge schedule on a basis of the battery capacity estimated and the condition (see charging time calculation formula 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Park to include the known use of a scheduler and a condition acquisition of Paul for the benefit of improving the accuracy obtain improved accuracy.
With respect to claim 12 Paul teaches the condition related to the charge time includes setting, as the charge time, an entire period of a chargeable time that is a time during which each of a plurality of the storage batteries is chargeable (see each EV arrival and departure and interval between charging available charging period), and the condition related to the target power includes that a total of the charge power of the plurality of the storage batteries over the entire period of the chargeable time does not exceed an upper limit value (see time slots when charging power exceeds available power adjusting the charging rate).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190317150) in view of Chakraborty et al. (WO2017022000)
Park teaches the characteristic and capacity units as detailed above with respect to claim 1 however does not teach a condition acquisition unit and scheduling unit. Chakraborty teaches a condition acquisition unit (see supply and predicted demand information for each period paragraph 28-32) configured to acquire a condition related to a discharge time (paragraph 24-25) for discharging the storage battery and/or a condition including a target power (paragraph 0034-37) to be a target during discharging; and a discharge schedule generation unit (150) configured to generate a discharge schedule on a basis of the battery capacity estimated and the condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Park to use the scheduling of Chakraborty for the benefit of ensuring the discharging is not scheduled more than the battery can supply.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7-9 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 and written to overcome the identified 112 rejections.
With respect to claim 3, 5 and 7 Park does not teach a mode determination unit configured to determine that the charge mode is a first charge mode in which the charge current is held at the predetermined current value on a basis of a direction of a change in the second output power value, wherein the capacity estimation unit performs the first estimation process when the first charge mode is determined. At least this further limitation is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
With respect to claim 8 Park teaches the estimation device however does not teach wherein the capacity estimation unit performs the first estimation process when the first charge mode is determined, and performs the second estimation process when the second charge mode is determined. At least this further limitation is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
With respect to claim 9 Park teaches the estimation device however does not teach a mode determination unit configured to determine that the charge mode is a first charge mode in which the charge current is held at the predetermined current value on a basis of a direction of a change in the second output power value, and the capacity estimation unit performs the first estimation process when the first charge mode is determined. At least this further limitation is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights