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 claims 1-7 fall within category of process; For example, each of claim 8-20 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));
Regarding Claims 1-7
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of determining a status of the battery.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method comprising:
initiating charging of a battery pack of a vehicle;
receiving charging parameters of the battery pack measured during charging of the battery pack;
initiating discharging of the battery pack;
receiving discharging parameters of the battery pack measured during discharging of the battery pack; and
determining a status of the battery pack based on the charging parameters and the discharging parameters..
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 “determining a status of the battery [..]” is a 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) ;
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, only additional first element is “initiating charging of a battery pack of a vehicle; receiving charging parameters of the battery pack measured during charging of the battery pack; initiating discharging of the battery pack; receiving discharging parameters of the battery pack measured during discharging of the battery pack” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and /or field of use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, 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. “a battery pack of a vehicle”, 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 2-7
Dependent claims 2-7 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-7 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- 7 are directed abstract idea of 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).
For example, the limitations of Claim 6: a combination of to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or pre-solution activity) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field with generic component .
Regarding Claims 8-13
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea of determining a status of the battery.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
8. A status monitor for determining a status of a battery pack of a vehicle, comprising:
a memory device; and
a processing unit connected to the memory device, wherein the processing unit is operative to:
initiate charging of a battery pack of a vehicle;
receive charging parameters of the battery pack measured during charging of the battery pack;
initiate discharging of the battery pack;
receive discharging parameters of the battery pack measured during discharging of the battery pack; and
determine a status of the battery pack based on the charging parameters and the discharging parameters.
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 “determining a status of the battery [..]” is a 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) ;
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 8 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 “initiating charging of a battery pack of a vehicle; receiving charging parameters of the battery pack measured during charging of the battery pack; initiating discharging of the battery pack; receiving discharging parameters of the battery pack measured during discharging of the battery pack” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “A status monitor for determining a status of a battery pack of a vehicle, comprising: a memory device; and a processing unit connected to the memory device, wherein the processing unit is operative to:. This element amounts to mere use of a generic battery pack of a vehicle charging system with computer 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 two “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
Claim 8 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. “battery pack, processor, memory”, 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 9-13
Dependent claims 9-13 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 9-13 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 9- 13 are directed abstract idea of 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).
For example, the limitations of Claim 13: a combination of to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field with generic component .
.
Regarding Claims 14-20
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea of determining a status of the battery.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
14. A system for determining a status of a battery pack of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a current sensor connected to the battery pack and operable to measure a current flowing through the battery pack;
a test comptroller connectable between a charging cable and a charge point of the battery pack, wherein the test controller is operable to interrupt connection between the charging cable and the battery pack; and
a status monitor connected to an electronic control unit of the vehicle, wherein the status monitor is operable to:
initiate charging of the battery pack through the test controller;
receive charging parameters of the battery pack measured during charging of the battery pack;
initiate discharging of the battery pack;
receive discharging parameters of the battery pack measured during discharging of the battery pack; and
determine the status of the battery pack based on the charging parameters and the discharging parameters..
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 “determining a status of the battery [..]” is a 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) ;
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 14 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 current sensor connected to the battery pack and operable to measure a current flowing through the battery pack; initiating charging of a battery pack of a vehicle; receiving charging parameters of the battery pack measured during charging of the battery pack; initiating discharging of the battery pack; receiving discharging parameters of the battery pack measured during discharging of the battery pack” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “system, the system comprising: a current sensor connected to the battery pack; a test comptroller connectable between a charging cable and a charge point of the battery pack, wherein the test controller is operable to interrupt connection between the charging cable and the battery pack; and a status monitor connected to an electronic control unit of the vehicle, wherein the status monitor is operable to”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic sensor with computer 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 two “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
Claims14 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. “Battery Monitoring system”, 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 15-20
Dependent claims 15-20 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 15-20 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marangone et al. (US 2025/0010760).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8. Marangone teaches a method comprising(fig.4):
(A status monitor for determining a status of a battery pack of a vehicle, comprising: a memory device; and a processing unit connected to the memory device, wherein the processing unit is operative to:)(as cited in claim 1)(100: fig.1; figs 2-3)
initiating charging of a battery pack of a vehicle(508: fig.5);
receiving charging parameters of the battery pack measured during charging of the battery pack(510-512: fig. 5);
initiating discharging of the battery pack(502: fig. 5);
receiving discharging parameters of the battery pack measured during discharging of the battery pack(504-506:fig. 5); and
determining a status of the battery pack based on the charging parameters and the discharging parameters(515: fig. 5).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9. Marangone further teaches determining the status of the battery pack comprises determining a health score of the battery pack on a predetermined scale(514: fig. 5; The results of the determined battery pack capacity are then provided to inform the user of a battery pack state of health (or operational status), which is illustratively represented as a percentage of the current determined battery pack capacity as compared to a nominal battery pack capacity value: [0017],[0046], [0058] ).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10. Marangone further teaches determining an impedance of the battery pack from the charging parameters and the discharging parameters(The battery management system 108 can be configured to monitor the states of the battery 102. For example, the battery management system 108 can monitor state of charge, voltage, current, temperature, operating time, impedance or the like for each battery pack 104: [0021]); and
determining the status of the battery pack based on the impedance (The battery management system 108 can be configured to monitor the states of the battery 102. For example, the battery management system 108 can monitor state of charge, voltage, current, temperature, operating time, impedance or the like for each battery pack 104: [0021]).
Regarding Claims 6. Marangone further teaches the charging parameters and the discharging parameters comprises one or more of the following: a voltage, a current, a state of charge, and a temperature([0021], [0053], [0057]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 13. Marangone further teaches providing instructions to a user to prepare the vehicle for initiating charging and discharging of the battery pack([0023]).
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) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangone et al. (US 2025/0010760) in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0027056).
Regarding Claim 4 and 11. Marangone further teaches measuring temperature at [0021]
Marangone silent about determining static parameters of the battery pack when the battery pack is neither charging nor discharging; and
determining the status of the battery pack based on the charging parameters, the discharging parameters, and the static parameters.
However, Huang teaches determining static parameters of the battery pack when the battery pack is neither charging nor discharging(temperature at resting: [0094]); and
determining the status of the battery pack based on the charging parameters, the discharging parameters, and the static parameters(available energy based on temperature: [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Marangone, determining static parameters of the battery pack when the battery pack is neither charging nor discharging; and determining the status of the battery pack based on the charging parameters, the discharging parameters, and the static parameters, as taught by Huang, so as to accurately evaluate battery durability and user can easily adjust charging/discharging parameters.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangone et al. (US 2025/0010760) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0070024)
Regarding Claim 5 and 12. Marangone silent about assigning an associated weight to each of the charging parameters and each of the discharging parameters; and determining the status comprising a health score of the battery pack based on the associated weight, the charging parameters, and the discharging parameters.
However, Kim teaches assigning an associated weight to each of the charging parameters and each of the discharging parameters; and determining the status comprising a health score of the battery pack based on the associated weight, the charging parameters, and the discharging parameters([0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Marangone, assigning an associated weight to each of the charging parameters and each of the discharging parameters; and determining the status comprising a health score of the battery pack based on the associated weight, the charging parameters, and the discharging parameters, as taught by Kim, so as to real-time by estimate the current capacity of the battery.
Claim(s) 14, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangone et al. (US 2025/0010760) in view of YA et al. (US 2024/0025279).
Regarding claim 14. Marangone teaches a system for determining a status of a battery pack of a vehicle(abstract; figs 1-3), the system comprising: a current sensor connected to the battery pack and operable to measure a current flowing through the battery pack([0015]); and a status monitor connected to an electronic control unit of the vehicle (108,202A: fig. fig.2A), wherein the status monitor is operable to:
initiate charging of the battery pack through the test controller(508: fig.5);
receive charging parameters of the battery pack measured during charging of the battery pack( 510-512: fig. 5);
initiate discharging of the battery pack(502: fig. 5);
receive discharging parameters of the battery pack measured during discharging of the battery pack(504-506:fig. 5); and
determine the status of the battery pack based on the charging parameters and the discharging parameters(515: fig. 5).
Marangone silent about the system further comprising: a test comptroller connectable between a charging cable and a charge point of the battery pack, wherein the test controller is operable to interrupt connection between the charging cable and the battery pack;
However, Ya teaches the system further comprising: a test comptroller (142: fig. 1) connectable between a charging cable (108: fig.1) and a charge point of the battery pack(112: fig.1), wherein the test controller is operable to interrupt connection between the charging cable and the battery pack(Processor 124 may open switch 142 when arc events are detected during charging or if the charging current is flowing in the opposite direction (e.g., current flows from charging port 112 of EV 106 to charging port 110 of charger 104). Processor 124 may also open switch 142 if the voltage, current, and/or power at cross-connect cable 102 exceeds a threshold: [0033], [0037], 0040);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Marangone, a test comptroller connectable between a charging cable and a charge point of the battery pack, wherein the test controller is operable to interrupt connection between the charging cable and the battery pack, as taught by Ya, so as to the user and/or EV, and allows the user of EV to verify the energy transaction information provided by the charger in easy manner.
Regarding claim 16. Marangone further teaches a display device(204: fig.2 ; [0044]),
Marangone silent about the status monitor is further operable to: display, on the display device, one or more instructions on plugging the test controller to the charging cable and plugging the test controller to the charge point of the vehicle.
However, Ya teaches the status monitor is further operable to: display, on the display device, one or more instructions on plugging the test controller to the charging cable and plugging the test controller to the charge point of the vehicle(140: fig. 1; charging information: [0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Marangone, the status monitor is further operable to: display, on the display device, one or more instructions on plugging the test controller to the charging cable and plugging the test controller to the charge point of the vehicle, as taught by Ya, so as to the user and/or EV, and allows the user of EV to verify the energy transaction information provided by the charger in easy manner.
Regarding claim 17. Marangone further teaches (the electric vehicle 100 or a mobile device that is remotely connected to the battery management system 108 through a wireless communication channel. the user interface 204 may be physically within the electric vehicle 100 or may be remotely connected to the electric vehicle 100 through wireless communication channels or computer networks:[0022]-[0023])
Marangone silent about the status monitor being operable to initiate charging of the battery pack comprises the status monitor being operable to wirelessly communicate with the test controller to connect the charging cable to the charge point.
However, Ya teaches the status monitor being operable to initiate charging of the battery pack comprises the status monitor being operable to wirelessly communicate with the test controller to connect the charging cable to the charge point (140: fig. 1; charging information: [0034]-[0035], [0050], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Marangone, tthe status monitor being operable to initiate charging of the battery pack comprises the status monitor being operable to wirelessly communicate with the test controller to connect the charging cable to the charge point, as taught by Ya, so as to the user and/or EV, and allows the user of EV to verify the energy transaction information provided by the charger in easy manner.
Regarding claim 20. Marangone further teaches the status monitor being operable to determine the status of the battery pack comprises the status monitor being operable to determine a health score of the battery pack on a predetermined scale(514: fig. 5; The results of the determined battery pack capacity are then provided to inform the user of a battery pack state of health (or operational status), which is illustratively represented as a percentage of the current determined battery pack capacity as compared to a nominal battery pack capacity value: [0017],[0046], [0058].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangone et al. (US 2025/0010760) in view of YA et al. (US 2024/0025279), further in view of Bertness (US 2021/0141043)
Regarding Claim 15. The modified Marangone silent about a scanner, wherein the status monitor is operable to: receive a scan report of a vehicle identification number of the vehicle from the scanner; determine, from the vehicle identification number, a make and a model of the vehicle; determine battery information of the battery pack; and determine one or more instructions associated with the vehicle.
However, Bertness teaches a scanner, wherein the status monitor is operable to: receive a scan report of a vehicle identification number of the vehicle from the scanner; determine, from the vehicle identification number, a make and a model of the vehicle([0047], [0053]); determine battery information of the battery pack([0047], [0053]); and determine one or more instructions associated with the vehicle([0047], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Marangone, a scanner, wherein the status monitor is operable to: receive a scan report of a vehicle identification number of the vehicle from the scanner; determine, from the vehicle identification number, a make and a model of the vehicle; determine battery information of the battery pack; and determine one or more instructions associated with the vehicle, as taught by Bertness, so as to perform maintenance work on battery pack of motor vehicle which is powered by battery pack..
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangone et al. (US 2025/0010760) in view of YA et al. (US 2024/0025279), further in view of Jang et al. (US 2018/0037124)
Regarding Claim 18. The modified Marangone silent about the status monitor being operable to initiate charging of the battery pack comprises the status monitor being operable to instruct a user to switch of any auxiliary load and disconnect any external apparatus connected to the vehicle prior to initiating charging of the battery pack.
However, Jang teaches the status monitor being operable to initiate charging of the battery pack comprises the status monitor being operable to instruct a user to switch of any auxiliary load and disconnect any external apparatus connected to the vehicle prior to initiating charging of the battery pack([0020]-[0021], [0030]-[0031],[0216]-[0217]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Marangone, the status monitor being operable to initiate charging of the battery pack comprises the status monitor being operable to instruct a user to switch of any auxiliary load and disconnect any external apparatus connected to the vehicle prior to initiating charging of the battery pack, as taught by Jang, so as to the time required for charging the high-voltage battery is shortened by avoiding the supply of electric power from the high-voltage battery to an auxiliary battery or load.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangone et al. (US 2025/0010760) in view of YA et al. (US 2024/0025279), further in view of Li et al. (US2023/0062270).
Regarding Claim 19. The modified Marangone silent about the status monitor being operable to initiate discharging of the battery pack comprises the status monitor being operable to instruct a user to switch on each auxiliary load and switch on one of an air conditioner and a heating unit of the vehicle.
However, Li teaches the status monitor being operable to initiate discharging of the battery pack comprises the status monitor being operable to instruct a user to switch on each auxiliary load and switch on one of an air conditioner and a heating unit of the vehicle(108: fig. 1; [0088]-[0189]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Marangone, the status monitor being operable to initiate discharging of the battery pack comprises the status monitor being operable to instruct a user to switch on each auxiliary load and switch on one of an air conditioner and a heating unit of the vehicle, as taught by Li, so as to current parameter relating to heating the pack is collected, and durations of charging and discharging stages are adjusted based on a preset desired current threshold range of the pack..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Kallaper et al. (US 20160288648) disclose a testing a traction battery (5) of an electric vehicle (1), which battery is both chargeable and dischargeable via a charging-discharging interface (2), a control command for initiating a discharging process of the traction battery (5) is generated. The discharging process is monitored by a testing apparatus (10). At least one characteristic quantity of the traction battery (5) is determined depending on the monitored discharging process.
b) US 20230123176: discloses customizable electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) systems may be utilized for charging electrified vehicles. Exemplary EVSE systems may include a charging cord assembly having a cable that includes an outer sheath and a lighting module housed within the outer sheath. The lighting module may be controlled to emit lighting effects for providing visual indications of various electrified vehicle charging statuses. Settings associated with the lighting effects may be customized within a human machine interface (HMI) of the EVSE system.
c) US 20220334188: disclose a system and method for performing a vehicle battery test includes a battery tester having a controller programed to obtain a first battery parameter and a second battery parameter of a primary battery from a vehicle controller, compare the first battery parameter to a first threshold, compare the second battery parameter to a second threshold and perform a reserve charge test on the battery using the battery tester or generating a display indicative of high corrosion or a bad cell in response to the compare the first battery parameter and compare the second battery parameter steps being performed by the controller.
D) Hardy et al. (US 20150346288 ) disclose Testing of electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) is performed. In an active mode, the device provides or is connected with a programmable load capable of emulating the load of an electrical vehicle (EV). In passive mode, the load is an EV with the device being arranged in series between the EVCS and EV. In either case, energy delivery from the EVCS to the load is monitored by the device to determine energy measurement and billing accuracy of the EVCS. This enables a comparison to be made between a measured value of energy delivered and a metered value of energy delivered as given by the EVCS. Other measurements and safety tests may also be performed by the device. A programmable load controller is also provided for providing a variable effective load as seen by the EVCS based on one or more fixed loads.
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