DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 06/11/2024 and 02/03/2025 has/have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1-7 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 06/11/2024:
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Non-Final Rejection
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control apparatus configured to control driving of the two inverter circuits” in claims 1 and 7.
Claim limitations: “a control apparatus configured to control driving of the two inverter circuits” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder(s) such as “apparatus” respectively coupled with functional language: without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification, the applicant describes the structure of the “control apparatus” as follows: “The control apparatus 50 serves as a device that controls the driving of the first motor 11L and the second motor 11R by one or more processors executing a computer program. The computer program is a computer program that causes a processor to execute an operation described later to be executed by the control apparatus 50.” in at least ¶: 0020 of the Applicant’s specification.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “control apparatus” as including but not limited to generic computing components that in conjunction with software achieve the claimed functionality, for example.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections/Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-6 is/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. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. (United States Patent Publication 2009/0277701 A1) in view of Yamamoto (United States Patent 6,457,351 B1) referenced as Soma and Yamamoto, respectively, moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Soma discloses:
“A motor control system for an electric vehicle, the motor control system comprising: a battery” [Soma; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Soma discloses a battery ECU (denoted 220 in Fig. 1) for an electric vehicle connected to a battery (denoted "B" in Fig. 1); ¶: 0055];
“a motor comprising a rotor and a stator; two inverter circuits that are each coupled to the stator and are each configured to control driving and regeneration of the motor” [Soma; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Soma discloses two motor generators(denoted MG1 and MG2 in Fig. 1); each connected to a respective inverter(denoted 20 and 30 in Fig. 1). Soma further discloses each of MG1 and MG2 comprise a hollow rotor(¶: 0056) and a stator coil(¶: 0059); Fig. 1; ¶: 0055-0059];
“and a control apparatus configured to control driving of the two inverter circuits” [Soma; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Soma discloses an MGECU(denoted 210 in Fig. 1) that controls driving and regeneration using MG1 and MG2 as well as the inverters; Fig. 1; ¶: 0055-0059, 0065-0067];
“wherein the control apparatus is configured to cause the battery to discharge by driving the respective two inverter circuits” [Soma; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Soma discloses that MG1 and MG2 are each driven to generate a designated torque using the inverters to draw power from the battery; Fig. 1; ¶: 0055-0059, 0065-0067];
“and execute a deterioration diagnosis process of the battery, based on an output current or an output voltage of the battery upon the discharging” [Soma; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Soma discloses a deterioration determining unit(denoted 600 in Fig. 12), which causes the vehicle to enter a diagnosis mode to assess a deterioration degree of the vehicle's battery as follows: " Deterioration determining unit 600 obtains a deterioration degree of battery B (power storage device) based on temperature Tb, current Ib, voltage Vb and the like of battery B;"(¶: 0133) upon reaching a certain state-of-charge target, i.e. the battery has discharged by a predetermined amount; See also: Fig. 13, 14; ¶: 0131, 0132, 0134-0146v].
Soma does not specifically state: “and applying, to the rotor, rotational torques in directions opposite to each other.”
Yamamoto, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for determining efficiency of a battery used to power a vehicle, teaches: “and applying, to the rotor, rotational torques in directions opposite to each other” [Yamamoto; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yamamoto teaches determining a charge discharging efficiency of a vehicle a battery using a testing method in which data comprising at least a generated drive torque and a deceleration drive torque(whose directions oppose each other based on the understood definitions of driving and deceleration in the art); Claim 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for determining a deterioration degree of a battery of a hybrid electric vehicle as disclosed by Soma to incorporate the teachings regarding testing the discharge efficiency of the battery using a testing method comprising a combination of driving and regenerative torques as taught by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for determining a deterioration degree of a battery of a hybrid electric vehicle that is more robust in its ability to perform comprehensive testing and analysis to “estimate or predict running efficiencies of the electric motor and a battery, a control efficiency of regenerative braking, a battery discharge efficiency, an auxiliary equipment drive control condition, an engine startup control condition, or a fuel consumption, thereby facilitating improvements in hybrid vehicle quality and maintenance” [Yamamoto; Col: 2, Lines: 4-10].
With respect to claim 7, Soma discloses:
“An electric vehicle comprising: a battery” [Soma; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Soma discloses a battery ECU (denoted 220 in Fig. 1) for an electric vehicle connected to a battery (denoted "B" in Fig. 1); ¶: 0055];
“a motor comprising a rotor and a stator; two inverter circuits that are each coupled to the stator and are each configured to control driving and regeneration of the motor; a motor comprising a rotor and a stator; two inverter circuits that are each coupled to the stator and are each configured to control driving and regeneration of the motor” [Soma; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Soma discloses two motor generators(denoted MG1 and MG2 in Fig. 1); each connected to a respective inverter(denoted 20 and 30 in Fig. 1). Soma further discloses each of MG1 and MG2 comprise a hollow rotor(¶: 0056) and a stator coil(¶: 0059); Fig. 1; ¶: 0055-0059];
“and a control apparatus configured to control driving of the two inverter circuits” [Soma; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Soma discloses an MGECU(denoted 210 in Fig. 1) that controls driving and regeneration using MG1 and MG2 as well as the inverters; Fig. 1; ¶: 0055-0059, 0065-0067];
“wherein the control apparatus is configured to cause the battery to discharge by driving the respective two inverter circuits” [Soma; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Soma discloses that MG1 and MG2 are each driven to generate a designated torque using the inverters to draw power from the battery; Fig. 1; ¶: 0055-0059, 0065-0067];
“and execute a deterioration diagnosis process of the battery, based on an output current or an output voltage of the battery upon the discharging” [Soma; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Soma discloses a deterioration determining unit(denoted 600 in Fig. 12), which causes the vehicle to enter a diagnosis mode to assess a deterioration degree of the vehicle's battery as follows: " Deterioration determining unit 600 obtains a deterioration degree of battery B (power storage device) based on temperature Tb, current Ib, voltage Vb and the like of battery B;"(¶: 0133) upon reaching a certain state-of-charge target, i.e. the battery has discharged by a predetermined amount; See also: Fig. 13, 14; ¶: 0131, 0132, 0134-0146].
Soma does not specifically state: “and applying, to the rotor, rotational torques in directions opposite to each other.”
Yamamoto teaches: “and applying, to the rotor, rotational torques in directions opposite to each other” [Yamamoto; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yamamoto teaches determining a charge discharging efficiency of a vehicle a battery using a testing method in which data comprising at least a generated drive torque and a deceleration drive torque(whose directions oppose each other based on the understood definitions of driving and deceleration in the art); Claim 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for determining a deterioration degree of a battery of a hybrid electric vehicle as disclosed by Soma to incorporate the teachings regarding testing the discharge efficiency of the battery using a testing method comprising a combination of driving and regenerative torques as taught by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for determining a deterioration degree of a battery of a hybrid electric vehicle that is more robust in its ability to perform comprehensive testing and analysis to “estimate or predict running efficiencies of the electric motor and a battery, a control efficiency of regenerative braking, a battery discharge efficiency, an auxiliary equipment drive control condition, an engine startup control condition, or a fuel consumption, thereby facilitating improvements in hybrid vehicle quality and maintenance” [Yamamoto; Col: 2, Lines: 4-10].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
SHINOJIMA (Japanese Patent Publication 2007120334 A) discloses: An object of the present invention is to detect an abnormality in driving force of a vehicle with high accuracy. A required vehicle driving energy consumption rate (energy consumption per unit time required to drive a vehicle with a driving force requested by a driver) is calculated based on an accelerator operation amount and the like, and a fuel injection amount The actual vehicle drive energy consumption rate (energy consumption per unit time consumed to drive the vehicle) is calculated based on the above, and the actual vehicle drive energy consumption rate is equal to or greater than the determination value than the required vehicle drive energy consumption rate Whether there is an abnormality in the vehicle driving force is determined based on whether it is large or not. Thus, it is possible to accurately detect an abnormality in which the vehicle driving force is clearly greater than the driver's request without being affected by the power transmission system or the driving region. Furthermore, when it is determined that there is an abnormality in the vehicle driving force, fail safe control is performed to suppress the actual vehicle driving energy consumption rate, and the vehicle is safely evacuated while preventing sudden acceleration against the driver's will. It can be so.
KASAI (Japanese Patent Publication 2007131075 A) discloses: To accurately diagnose the state of a battery (60). An electric motor 15 of an electric power steering apparatus 1 is gradually energized after a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the ignition switch 80 is turned off, and the battery 60 is deteriorated based on the energization amount and a battery detection voltage that varies accordingly. The state is diagnosed, and the upper limit value of the assist current is determined based on the diagnosis result. In this case, it is possible to improve diagnostic accuracy and safety by confirming that the steering handle 11 is locked by the key switch 83 and energizing the d-axis of the electric motor 15.
SHOJI (United States Patent Publication 2009/0024339 A1) discloses: A method and apparatus is used to confirm the charge amount and degradation state of a battery. Various cycle test battery measurements are conducted at prescribed time intervals until the end of the battery life, and the measured values are used to generate a determination table or determination tables showing relationships between battery charge amount and degradation state. To establish the charge amount and degradation state of a subject battery, the subject battery is measured and the results compared with determination table values. The existing charge amount and the state of battery degradation are estimated in accordance with a determination table location of matching values.
Kasai (United States Patent Publication 2009/0259419 A1) discloses: A battery condition diagnosis apparatus for a vehicle gradually supplies electricity to an electric motor of an electric power steering apparatus when a predetermined time elapses after an ignition switch is turned off. The apparatus diagnoses the deteriorated condition of the battery on the basis of the amount of supplied electricity and the detected battery voltage which changes in accordance therewith. The electric motor may be a brushless DC motor. In this case, current is supplied to the electric motor such that only d-axis armature current Id in the d-q coordinate system flows, to thereby prevent the electric motor from rotating, whereby safety is secured. Accordingly, the condition of the battery can be accurately diagnosed by supplying electricity to the electric motor without changing the condition of the vehicle.
WATANABE (United States Patent Publication 2015/0185290 A1) discloses: A deterioration determination device for a vehicle-driving battery mounted in a vehicle includes a current detection unit that detects a current value of the battery, a voltage detection unit that detects a voltage value of the battery, and a calculation unit that calculates at predetermined time intervals a resistance value of the battery based on current values detected by the current detection unit and voltage values detected by the voltage detection unit during running of the vehicle, calculates a calculation accuracy of the calculated resistance value, and determines deterioration state of the battery based on the resistance value when the calculation accuracy is higher than a preset calculation accuracy.
FURUWAKA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0267925 A1) discloses: When a switching device cutoff failure determination unit determines a failure in a switching device cutoff switching unit, output torque produced based on the first armature winding and output torque produced based on the second armature winding are produced in such a way that the respective directions thereof are opposite to each other.
Aoyama (United States Patent Publication 2020/0247268 A1) discloses: A deterioration-state calculation method for a battery comprises: detecting current and voltage of the battery; calculating a charge state based on the detected value; calculating a first deterioration state of the battery for each predetermined period based on an elapsed time from the time use is started and an amount of charge-discharge; calculating a second deterioration state based on a change amount in the charge state of the battery and a change amount of current; calculating the second deterioration state for a plurality of times within the predetermined period; calculating reliability of calculation of the second deterioration state for each of a plurality of the second deterioration states based on the detected value; calculating a correction value of the deterioration state based on the second deterioration state with the reliability of the predetermined reliability or higher; and calculating the deterioration state by correcting the first deterioration state.
IWAMOTO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0395883 A1) discloses: With the object of preventing deterioration due to the temperature when charging a secondary battery, a configuration is such that currents are controlled so as to be caused to flow equally through the respective phases of three-phase coils of a second group which configure an AC rotary machine body, whereby a large current is caused to flow for a short time, causing the secondary battery to rise in temperature, even when the AC rotary machine body is in a state of rest.
KOBUNA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0219561 A1) discloses: A charge and discharge control device includes a controller configured to: predict, for each of vehicles included in a vehicle group, a remaining capacity of a storage battery mounted on each of the vehicles within a future predetermined period using a behavior prediction model that predicts behavior of each of the vehicle; optimize, for each vehicle, an instruction value of a charge and discharge power amount of the storage battery within the predetermined period such that an accumulation value of the charge and discharge power amounts follows a demand value for the vehicle group while minimizing a degradation amount of the storage battery using the predicted remaining capacities of the storage batteries and a battery degradation prediction model that predicts the degradation amount of the storage battery from the remaining capacity; and control a charging and discharging operation of the storage battery according to the optimized instruction value.
NAREMATSU (United States Patent Publication 2022/0219565 A1) discloses: A battery control system includes an acquisition unit configured to acquire a state quantity of the battery, a first estimation unit configured to perform an estimation process of estimating a full charging capacity of the battery based on the state quantity of the battery acquired by the acquisition unit by controlling charging or discharging of the battery, a first transmission unit configured to transmit a transmission request for requesting transmission of an estimation result of the full charging capacity of the battery to a management device when the estimation process is not able to be performed by the first estimation unit, and a first reception unit configured to receive an estimation result of the full charging capacity of the battery from the management device when the estimation process is not able to be performed by the first estimation unit.
HONG et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0234680 A1) discloses: The present invention relates to a system for driving a chainless electric bicycle comprising: a driving wheel; a pedal; a motor mechanically connected to the driving wheel; a generator mechanically connected to the pedal; and a battery, wherein provided is a system comprising: a generator location sensor for measuring the value of a rotation location of the generator; a motor location sensor for measuring the value of a rotation location of the motor; and a controller configured to calculate a difference value of the value of the rotation location of the motor minus the value of the rotation location of the generator multiplied by a gear ratio, and to control at least one of the generator and the motor on the basis of the difference value.
Mehta (United States Patent Publication 2023/0007834 A1) discloses: The present disclosure relates to systems, devices, and methods for analyzing health of vehicle batteries. Vehicle batteries tend to degrade over time. The described systems, devices, and methods quantify this degradation (or quantify remaining health of the battery) by comparing average energy used to charge or discharge the battery by a charge level unit to a nominal quantity of energy used to charge or discharge a battery in optimal health by a charge level unit. Charge data for previous charge events of the vehicle battery can be used in the calculation, and can be filtered by identifying qualified charge events based on at least one of a number of metrics. Usage data for previous usage events of the vehicle battery can be used in the calculation, and can be filtered by identifying qualified usage events or subgroups of usage event based on at least one of a number of metrics.
KOBAYASHI et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0062034 A1) discloses: An in-vehicle battery management device includes a controller configured or programmed to control a charge/discharge device such that the charge/discharge device performs charge or discharge on an in-vehicle battery of an electric vehicle in a predetermined processing condition, the in-vehicle battery being connected to the charge/discharge device. The controller includes a calculator configured or programmed to calculate a degree of deterioration progress of the in-vehicle battery based on charge/discharge information in the charge or discharge; and a communicator configured or programmed to notify a predetermined notification target of the calculated degree of deterioration progress.
BERGER et al. (United States Patent Publication 2024/0361397 A1) discloses: A method for ascertaining the state of health of the vehicle battery of an electric vehicle includes charging the vehicle battery and ascertaining specified battery parameters during the charging process, and calculating the state of health of the vehicle battery using a vehicle-specific battery model on the basis of the transmitted battery parameters. A basic battery model, which is based on the vehicle battery type, in the form of an electric equivalent circuit model is first used as the vehicle-specific battery model, wherein the internal resistance and RC elements are ascertained as a function of the cell temperature and the charge state, an open circuit voltage characteristic is ascertained as a function of the charge state, and the cell temperature is ascertained using a thermal model on the basis of the measured battery pack current, EC parameters, the battery module temperature, and the ambient temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights