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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/26/2026, for application number 18/780,715 filed on 07/23/2024, in which claims 1-15 were previously presented for examination.
Claims 16-18 are new.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/26/2026 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 10/24/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Drawing Objections: The objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Interpretation: The claim interpretation section stated in the Non-Final office action mailed on 10/24/2025 simply provides the standard of claim interpretation.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that “Thus, in Rhode, the controller waits for a predefined amount of time until the battery completely (or nearly completely) rests and then starts to measure the OCV of the battery. In contrast, claim 1 recites "acquire voltage data about the traction battery for a predefined period of time [] and before expiration of the predefined period of time, initiate processing of the voltage data" which differentiates from Rhode. Further, in the rejections to claim 1, the Examiner seemingly relied on Rhode [0044] disclosing "the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 to close" as allegedly defining the end of "the predefined period of time" as claimed. (Office Action at 6.) Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the contactors closing is not "a predefined period of time" as claimed because the time when the contactors are closed is undeterminable. E.g., the time when the contactors are closed is not predefined.” Examiner disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “the predefined period of time” includes any time period that is defined in advance. The period of time does not have to be a fixed length and may be predefined as a period of time from initiation of one action to initiation of another action.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Regarding the New Claims: The Office has supplied new grounds of rejection attached below in the FINAL office action.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes et al. (US 2020/0298724 A1, hereinafter “Rhodes”) in view of Ishida et al. (JP 2015230169 A, hereinafter “Ishida”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Ishida.
Regarding claim 1, Rhodes discloses a vehicle comprising:
a traction battery (Rhodes at para. [0021]: “The vehicle 102 includes a battery system 170. The battery system 170 may include at least one high-voltage (HV) battery 178 (shown in FIG. 2) such as a traction battery” “The high-voltage battery 178 may be used to power electric vehicles”);
an electric machine (Rhodes at para. [0015]: “The vehicle 102 may be an electric vehicle (EV) including a hybrid electric vehicle (HEY) powered both by fuel and electricity, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and battery electric vehicles (BEV)”; Electric vehicles includes at least one electric motor); and
one or more controllers (Rhodes at para. [0025]: “FIG. 2 illustrates an example block diagram for a SOC system 200. The system 200 may include the controller 106”) programmed to, responsive to disconnection of the traction battery and electric machine (Rhodes at para. [0040]: “At block 335, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 of the high-voltage battery 178 to open”), acquire voltage data about the traction battery for a predefined period of time (Rhodes at para. [0042]: “At block 345, the controller 106 may instruct for the OCV measurement to be taken. In response, the controller 106 may receive the OCV measurement from the high-voltage battery 178 via the voltmeter”; para. [0044]: “Next, at block 355, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 to close”; The OCV is measured until the contactors are instructed to be closed (i.e., expiration of the predefined period of time); Examiner notes that the “period of time” does not have to be a fixed length and may be defined as a period of time from initiation of one action to initiation of another action), initiate processing of the voltage data such that utilization of a processor performing the processing increases before the predefined period of time ends (Rhodes at para. [0043]: “At block 350, the controller 106 may compare the OCV measurement with the look-up table within the memory 108. The controller 106 may determine the remaining battery energy based on the SOC”; para. [0044]: “Next, at block 355, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 to close”; The remaining battery energy is determined, which increases the utilization of the processor performing the processing, before the contactors are instructed to be closed (i.e., expiration of the predefined period of time)).
However, Rhodes does not explicitly state acquire voltage data about the traction battery for a predefined period of time such that the voltage data is written to memory for the predefined period of time.
In the same field of endeavor, Ishida teaches acquire voltage data about the traction battery for a predefined period of time such that the voltage data is written to memory for the predefined period of time (Ishida at para. [0018]: “As shown in FIG. 4, when the program of the subroutine starts (step B01), the OCV prediction calculation unit 11 acquires the terminal voltage (E) of the voltage detector 6 (step B02), and calculates the measurement time (T) To do (step B03). Further, in this step B03, the output value of the voltage detector 6 is measured every set time until the measurement time (T) elapses, and the value is stored in the memory 18 every set time. Then, the OCV prediction calculation unit 11 calculates a logarithmic time Log (T) of the voltage (E) and the measurement time (T) based on the output value stored in the memory 18 (step B04)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Rhodes by adding the voltage data of Ishida with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Rhodes in view of Ishida is to provide accurate determination of state of battery.
Regarding claim 2, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the one or more controllers are further programmed to generate an open circuit voltage associated with the traction battery as a result of the processing (Rhodes at para. [0042]: “At block 345, the controller 106 may instruct for the OCV measurement to be taken. In response, the controller 106 may receive the OCV measurement from the high-voltage battery 178 via the voltmeter”).
Regarding claim 4, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses further comprising contactors, wherein opening of the contactors results in the disconnection (Rhodes at para. [0003]: “processor coupled to the associated contactor and configured to control the contactor to disconnect the battery from the load to obtain an open-circuit-voltage (OCV) measurement”).
Regarding claim 5, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the predefined period of time occurs while the vehicle is parked (Rhodes at para. [0037]: “The controller 106, at block 320, may instruct the vehicle 102 to park”).
Regarding claim 6, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the vehicle of claim 5.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the predefined period of time occurs while the vehicle is in a key-off mode (Rhodes at para. [0022]: “The SOC displayed via display 138 may only be reset when the vehicle is keyed off and the high-voltage battery 178 is not under a load”).
Regarding claim 7, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the processing ends after the predefined period of time ends such that the utilization decreases after the predefined period of time ends (Rhodes at para. [0044]: “Next, at block 355, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 to close”; para. [0046]: “The process 300 may then end”; The process ends after the contactors close (i.e., the predefined period of time ends), and the utilization decreases when the process ends).
Regarding claim 8, Rhodes discloses a power system for a vehicle, comprising:
one or more controllers (Rhodes at para. [0025]: “FIG. 2 illustrates an example block diagram for a SOC system 200. The system 200 may include the controller 106”) programmed to, while the vehicle is parked and in a key-off mode, (Rhodes at para. [0022]: “The SOC displayed via display 138 may only be reset when the vehicle is keyed off and the high-voltage battery 178 is not under a load”; para. [0038]: “At block 325, the controller 106 may determine whether the vehicle has parked via the vehicle status data received from the vehicle ECUs 148”; para. [0040]: “At block 335, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 of the high-voltage battery 178 to open”; para. [0042]: “At block 345, the controller 106 may instruct for the OCV measurement to be taken. In response, the controller 106 may receive the OCV measurement from the high-voltage battery 178 via the voltmeter”; para. [0044]: “Next, at block 355, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 to close”; The OCV is measured until the contactors are instructed to be closed (i.e., expiration of the predefined period of time)), and initiate processing of the voltage data prior to an end of the predefined period of time such that the processing ends after the predefined period of time and utilization of a processor performing the processing increases before the predefined period of time ends and decreases after the predefined period of time ends (Rhodes at para. [0043]: “At block 350, the controller 106 may compare the OCV measurement with the look-up table within the memory 108. The controller 106 may determine the remaining battery energy based on the SOC”; para. [0044]: “Next, at block 355, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 to close”; The remaining battery energy is determined, which increases the utilization of the processor performing the processing, until the contactors are instructed to be closed (i.e., expiration of the predefined period of time); para. [0046]: “The process 300 may then end”; The process ends after the contactors close (i.e., the predefined period of time ends), and the utilization decreases when the process ends).
However, Rhodes does not explicitly state write voltage data associated with a battery of the vehicle to memory for a predefined period of time.
In the same field of endeavor, Ishida teaches write voltage data associated with a battery of the vehicle to memory for a predefined period of time (Ishida at para. [0018]: “As shown in FIG. 4, when the program of the subroutine starts (step B01), the OCV prediction calculation unit 11 acquires the terminal voltage (E) of the voltage detector 6 (step B02), and calculates the measurement time (T) To do (step B03). Further, in this step B03, the output value of the voltage detector 6 is measured every set time until the measurement time (T) elapses, and the value is stored in the memory 18 every set time. Then, the OCV prediction calculation unit 11 calculates a logarithmic time Log (T) of the voltage (E) and the measurement time (T) based on the output value stored in the memory 18 (step B04)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rhodes by adding writing the voltage data to the memory of Ishida with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Rhodes in view of Ishida is to provide accurate determination of state of battery.
Regarding claim 9, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the power system of claim 8.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the one or more controllers are further programmed to generate an open circuit voltage associated with the battery as a result of the processing (Rhodes at para. [0042]: “At block 345, the controller 106 may instruct for the OCV measurement to be taken. In response, the controller 106 may receive the OCV measurement from the high-voltage battery 178 via the voltmeter”).
Regarding claim 11, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the power system of claim 8.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the one or more controllers are further programmed to (Rhodes at para. [0003]: “processor coupled to the associated contactor and configured to control the contactor to disconnect the battery from the load to obtain an open-circuit-voltage (OCV) measurement”; para. [0040]: “At block 335, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 of the high-voltage battery 178 to open”; para. [0042]: “At block 345, the controller 106 may instruct for the OCV measurement to be taken. In response, the controller 106 may receive the OCV measurement from the high-voltage battery 178 via the voltmeter”).
Ishida further teaches write the voltage data (Ishida at para. [0018]: “As shown in FIG. 4, when the program of the subroutine starts (step B01), the OCV prediction calculation unit 11 acquires the terminal voltage (E) of the voltage detector 6 (step B02), and calculates the measurement time (T) To do (step B03). Further, in this step B03, the output value of the voltage detector 6 is measured every set time until the measurement time (T) elapses, and the value is stored in the memory 18 every set time. Then, the OCV prediction calculation unit 11 calculates a logarithmic time Log (T) of the voltage (E) and the measurement time (T) based on the output value stored in the memory 18 (step B04)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rhodes by adding writing the voltage data of Ishida with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Rhodes in view of Ishida is to provide accurate determination of state of battery.
Regarding claim 12, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the power system of claim 11.
Rhodes further discloses wherein opening of contactors of the vehicle results in the disconnection (Rhodes at para. [0003]: “processor coupled to the associated contactor and configured to control the contactor to disconnect the battery from the load to obtain an open-circuit-voltage (OCV) measurement”).
Claims 3, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer et al. (DE 102019211051 A1, hereinafter “Quantmeyer”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Quantmeyer.
Regarding claim 3, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the vehicle of claim 2.
However, Rhodes in view of Ishida does not explicitly state wherein the one or more controllers are further programmed to charge or discharge the traction battery according to power limits that are based on the open circuit voltage.
In the same field of endeavor, Quantmeyer teaches wherein the one or more controllers are further programmed to charge or discharge the traction battery according to power limits that are based on the open circuit voltage (Quantmeyer at pg. 4, ln. 5-6: “The battery control device then performs in a subsequent step S7 10 carries out an OCV measurement, whereby the measured voltage is assigned a state of charge SOC 1 *, which is generally somewhat smaller than SOC 1”; pg. 4, ln. 12-13: “If the specified minimum state of charge SOC 2 is then reached (detected by a voltage measurement), a specified waiting time tR2 is again waited (step S10) and an OCV measurement is carried out, with the measured voltage being assigned a state of charge SOC 2 * (step S11 )”; pg. 4, ln. 14-17: “Since now the Traction battery 2 has a minimum state of charge SOC 2 * which is lower than the minimum state of charge for normal operation, the DC / DC converter becomes in a step S13 3 switched back to step-up mode, the previously removed charger 8th reconnected and in a subsequent step S14 the traction battery 2 charged to a predetermined state of charge SOC 3. SOC 3 is either the minimum or maximum state of charge of normal operation or an intermediate value. The procedure is then ended”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Rhodes in view of Ishida by adding charging or discharging the traction battery of Quantmeyer with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer is to provide accurate management of state of battery.
Regarding claim 10, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the power system of claim 9.
However, Rhodes in view of Ishida does not explicitly state wherein the one or more controllers are further programmed to charge and discharge the battery according to power limits that are based on the open circuit voltage.
In the same field of endeavor, Quantmeyer teaches wherein the one or more controllers are further programmed to charge and discharge the battery according to power limits that are based on the open circuit voltage (Quantmeyer at pg. 4, ln. 5-6: “The battery control device then performs in a subsequent step S7 10 carries out an OCV measurement, whereby the measured voltage is assigned a state of charge SOC 1 *, which is generally somewhat smaller than SOC 1”; pg. 4, ln. 12-13: “If the specified minimum state of charge SOC 2 is then reached (detected by a voltage measurement), a specified waiting time tR2 is again waited (step S10) and an OCV measurement is carried out, with the measured voltage being assigned a state of charge SOC 2 * (step S11 )”; pg. 4, ln. 14-17: “Since now the Traction battery 2 has a minimum state of charge SOC 2 * which is lower than the minimum state of charge for normal operation, the DC / DC converter becomes in a step S13 3 switched back to step-up mode, the previously removed charger 8th reconnected and in a subsequent step S14 the traction battery 2 charged to a predetermined state of charge SOC 3. SOC 3 is either the minimum or maximum state of charge of normal operation or an intermediate value. The procedure is then ended”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rhodes in view of Ishida by adding charging or discharging the battery of Quantmeyer with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer is to provide accurate management of state of battery.
Regarding claim 13, Rhodes discloses a method for a vehicle, comprising:
opening contactors electrically connected between a traction battery and an electric machine (Rhodes at para. [0040]: “At block 335, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 of the high-voltage battery 178 to open”);
(Rhodes at para. [0042]: “At block 345, the controller 106 may instruct for the OCV measurement to be taken. In response, the controller 106 may receive the OCV measurement from the high-voltage battery 178 via the voltmeter”; para. [0044]: “Next, at block 355, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 to close”; The OCV is measured until the contactors are instructed to be closed (i.e., expiration of the predefined period of time));
initiating processing of the voltage data prior to an end of the predefined period of time to generate an open circuit voltage for the traction battery (Rhodes at para. [0043]: “At block 350, the controller 106 may compare the OCV measurement with the look-up table within the memory 108. The controller 106 may determine the remaining battery energy based on the SOC”; para. [0044]: “Next, at block 355, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 to close”; The remaining battery energy is determined until the contactors are instructed to be closed (i.e., expiration of the predefined period of time); Examiner notes that the “period of time” does not have to be a fixed length and may be defined as a period of time from initiation of one action to initiation of another action); and
However, Rhodes does not explicitly state writing voltage data about the traction battery to memory and charging or discharging the traction battery according to power limits that are based on the open circuit voltage.
In the same field of endeavor, Ishida teaches writing voltage data about the traction battery to memory (Ishida at para. [0018]: “As shown in FIG. 4, when the program of the subroutine starts (step B01), the OCV prediction calculation unit 11 acquires the terminal voltage (E) of the voltage detector 6 (step B02), and calculates the measurement time (T) To do (step B03). Further, in this step B03, the output value of the voltage detector 6 is measured every set time until the measurement time (T) elapses, and the value is stored in the memory 18 every set time. Then, the OCV prediction calculation unit 11 calculates a logarithmic time Log (T) of the voltage (E) and the measurement time (T) based on the output value stored in the memory 18 (step B04)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rhodes by adding writing the voltage data about the traction battery to the memory of Ishida with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Rhodes in view of Ishida is to provide accurate determination of state of battery.
However, Rhodes in view of Ishida does not explicitly state charging or discharging the traction battery according to power limits that are based on the open circuit voltage.
In the same field of endeavor, Quantmeyer teaches charging or discharging the traction battery according to power limits that are based on the open circuit voltage (Quantmeyer at pg. 4, ln. 5-6: “The battery control device then performs in a subsequent step S7 10 carries out an OCV measurement, whereby the measured voltage is assigned a state of charge SOC 1 *, which is generally somewhat smaller than SOC 1”; pg. 4, ln. 12-13: “If the specified minimum state of charge SOC 2 is then reached (detected by a voltage measurement), a specified waiting time tR2 is again waited (step S10) and an OCV measurement is carried out, with the measured voltage being assigned a state of charge SOC 2 * (step S11 )”; pg. 4, ln. 14-17: “Since now the Traction battery 2 has a minimum state of charge SOC 2 * which is lower than the minimum state of charge for normal operation, the DC / DC converter becomes in a step S13 3 switched back to step-up mode, the previously removed charger 8th reconnected and in a subsequent step S14 the traction battery 2 charged to a predetermined state of charge SOC 3. SOC 3 is either the minimum or maximum state of charge of normal operation or an intermediate value. The procedure is then ended”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rhodes in view of Ishida by adding charging or discharging the traction battery of Quantmeyer with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer is to provide accurate management of state of battery.
Regarding claim 14, Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer teaches the method of claim 13.
Rhodes further discloses further comprising completing the processing after the end of the predefined period of time (Rhodes at para. [0044]: “Next, at block 355, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 to close”; para. [0046]: “The process 300 may then end”).
Regarding claim 15, Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer teaches the method of claim 13.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the opening occurs while the vehicle is parked (Rhodes at para. [0037]: “The controller 106, at block 320, may instruct the vehicle 102 to park”).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2012/0200298 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 16, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
However, Rhodes in view of Ishida does not explicitly state wherein the predefined period of time is associated with one or more fixed lengths that end before the traction battery and the electric machine are reconnected to the traction battery.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches wherein the predefined period of time is associated with one or more fixed lengths that end before the traction battery and the electric machine are reconnected to the traction battery (Zhang at para. [0005]: “The vehicle is in a charging state when the engine is operating and a non-charging state when the engine is not operating. A first battery voltage is measured at a first predetermined time after battery charging is discontinued in the non-charging state” “A second battery voltage is measured at a second predetermined time after the first predetermined time with the vehicle in the non-charging state” “An open circuit voltage is estimated as a function of the first voltage measurement, the second voltage measurement, and the fixed time constant”; The first and second battery voltages are measured between the first predetermined time and the second predetermined time (i.e., “predefined period of time is associated with one or more fixed lengths”), and the first and second battery voltages are both measured during the non-charging state and when the engine is not operating (i.e., “end before the traction battery and the electric machine are reconnected to the traction battery”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Rhodes in view of Ishida by adding the fixed lengths of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Zhang is to provide accurate management of state of battery.
Regarding claim 17, Rhodes in view of Ishida teaches power system of claim 8.
However, Rhodes in view of Ishida does not explicitly state wherein the predefined period of time is associated with one or more fixed lengths.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches wherein the predefined period of time is associated with one or more fixed lengths (Zhang at para. [0005]: “The vehicle is in a charging state when the engine is operating and a non-charging state when the engine is not operating. A first battery voltage is measured at a first predetermined time after battery charging is discontinued in the non-charging state” “A second battery voltage is measured at a second predetermined time after the first predetermined time with the vehicle in the non-charging state” “An open circuit voltage is estimated as a function of the first voltage measurement, the second voltage measurement, and the fixed time constant”; The first and second battery voltages are measured between the first predetermined time and the second predetermined time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rhodes in view of Ishida by adding the fixed lengths of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Zhang is to provide accurate management of state of battery.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer and Zhang.
Regarding claim 18, Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer teaches the method of claim 13.
Rhodes further discloses (Rhodes at para. [0042]: “At block 345, the controller 106 may instruct for the OCV measurement to be taken. In response, the controller 106 may receive the OCV measurement from the high-voltage battery 178 via the voltmeter”; para. [0043]: “At block 350, the controller 106 may compare the OCV measurement with the look-up table within the memory 108. The controller 106 may determine the remaining battery energy based on the SOC”; para. [0044]: “Next, at block 355, the controller 106 may instruct the high-voltage contactors 174 to close”; FIG. 3: The contactors are closed at block 355 after measuring OCV and processing the measured OCV).
However, Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer does not explicitly state:
wherein the predefined period of time ends before the contactors are subsequently closed.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches:
wherein the predefined period of time ends before the contactors are subsequently closed (Zhang at para. [0005]: “The vehicle is in a charging state when the engine is operating and a non-charging state when the engine is not operating. A first battery voltage is measured at a first predetermined time after battery charging is discontinued in the non-charging state” “A second battery voltage is measured at a second predetermined time after the first predetermined time with the vehicle in the non-charging state” “An open circuit voltage is estimated as a function of the first voltage measurement, the second voltage measurement, and the fixed time constant”; The first and second battery voltages are measured between the first predetermined time and the second predetermined time (i.e., “predefined period of time”); The first and second battery voltages are measured during the non-charging state and when the engine is not operating, and thus the measurement period must ends before the engine operates again (i.e., “ends before the contactors are subsequently closed”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer by adding the predefined period of time of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Rhodes in view of Ishida further in view of Quantmeyer and Zhang is to provide accurate management of state of battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the attached PTO-892 form.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 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 Browne can be reached at (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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666