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 .
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 9/4/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2023-0116938 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner notes that a retrieval request was made, but was indicated as unsuccessful as of the notice entered on 2/4/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the claim for foreign priority not having an associated certified copy of the KR 10-2023-0116938 application does not appear to have been addressed at the time of the present action, either through the filing of a certified copy or by addressing such assertion of missing documents in remarks.
With respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103, Applicant asserts as follows:
As amended, claims 1 and 11 recite that the charging power is selectively set to zero under a predetermined relationship between the first SOC and the second SOC. The Examiner relies primarily on Kumar for determining driving power and charging power based on SOC values, and on Duan for supplying charging power through a DC/DC converter (see Office Action at 6-9).
Applicants respectfully submit that the cited art fails to teach or suggest this newly recited feature, which clarifies the core technical concept of the disclosure, namely, that SOC-based control may intentionally exclude charging under certain conditions. The amended claims therefore define not merely SOC-based power redistribution, but a specific control architecture in which charging can be affirmatively disabled as part of the overall energy management strategy.
Kumar presupposes energy transfer and inter-battery charging as part of its energy management objective (see discussion of Kumar [0048] in the Office Action), where SOC differences trigger redistribution of power between batteries. In Kumar, SOC imbalance is treated as a condition requiring corrective charging or energy transfer. In contrast, the present disclosure introduces a positive control state in which charging power is explicitly set to zero under a predetermined SOC relationship, thereby inducing parallel energy consumption instead of redistribution. This is not simply an absence of charging, but an actively determined exclusion of charging to avoid unnecessary energy path loss and preserve driving efficiency in an independently driven add-on mobility module. Thus, whereas Kumar teaches energy redistribution in response to SOC differences, the present disclosure teaches energy isolation under defined SOC conditions. These represent fundamentally different control philosophies, and the cited references do not disclose or suggest the claimed charging-exclusion control state.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations, as noted by the Applicant, above, recite “wherein the charging power is selectively set to zero under a predetermined relationship between the first SOC and the second SOC.” This limitation, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in view of the specification, does not appear to limit the claim to the control philosophy contemplated by the arguments set forth above, merely requiring that under some relationship between the first and second states of charge, the charging factor is set to zero. This may include, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, having a condition of equivalent states of charge between first and second batteries, and electing not to determine any charging power between battery modules based on such, or alternatively not charging a battery that has a higher SOC compared to another. Applicant asserts, above, that “[i]n Kumar, SOC imbalance is treated as a condition requiring corrective charging or energy transfer. In contrast, the present disclosure introduces a positive control state in which charging power is explicitly set to zero under a predetermined SOC relationship, thereby inducing parallel energy consumption instead of redistribution. This is not simply an absence of charging, but an actively determined exclusion of charging to avoid unnecessary energy path loss and preserve driving efficiency in an independently driven add-on mobility module.” Examiner respectfully asserts that while separate drive-force motors are recited, the “predetermined relationship” under which the charging power is selectively set to zero does not appear to be defined or otherwise constrained as one that is configured to “avoid unnecessary energy path loss and preserve driving efficiency in an independently driven add-on mobility module” as asserted in arguments, above, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim could encompass the remedying of a SOC imbalance. Thus, the above arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Duan is relied upon for DC/DC converter implementation and current distribution between batteries (see Office Action at 6-7). However, Duan is directed to battery pack balancing and seeks SOC equalization through redistribution of current among battery units. When SOC differences are detected in Duan, current is allocated, either positively or negatively, to equalize battery states. The objective in Duan is to improve balancing performance by increasing or redistributing current to the more highly charged or less charged battery units. Applicants respectfully submit that Duan does not disclose an independently driven auxiliary mobility apparatus, nor does it teach a control state in which charging is deliberately set to zero for efficiency reasons. Rather, SOC differences in Duan trigger corrective redistribution to achieve balance.
In contrast, the present disclosure teaches that charging may be intentionally suppressed under a predetermined SOC relationship in order to maintain driving efficiency, avoid unnecessary DC/DC conversion loss, and preserve the independent propulsion characteristics of the add-on mobility. The goal is not SOC equalization, but efficiency preservation through conditional charging exclusion. Thus, Duan teaches balancing by redistribution, whereas the present disclosure teaches efficiency preservation by selective non-charging. Applicants respectfully submit that Kato and Oyama do not cure this deficiency. Kato addresses discharge and charge distribution ratios so that SOC values reach limits simultaneously (see Office Action at 10-16), and Oyama concerns torque scaling based on ratio-based control (see Office Action at 20-21). Neither reference teaches or suggests selectively setting charging power to zero under a predetermined SOC relationship, nor recognizing charging exclusion as a positive SOC-based control strategy. At most, these references adjust magnitudes of discharge or torque; they do not disclose a control mode in which charging is intentionally disabled as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Examiner asserts that as the “predetermined SOC relationship” is broadly recited, such that a wide range of relationships may qualify to set charging power to zero, Duan teaching a system to equalize battery states, and determining not to charge individual battery units when all battery unit states of charge fall within the same range as taught by Paragraphs 0048, 0052, & 0054 would appear to anticipate the relevant claim limitation(s) as amended as set forth in further detail below. Applicant asserts, inter alia, that “[t]he goal is not SOC equalization, but efficiency preservation through conditional charging exclusion,” however this ‘efficiency preservation’ does not appear to be defined by the claim, nor is the “predetermined SOC relationship” defined or otherwise constrained in such a manner as to narrow the scope of the claim to such an embodiment. Thus, and in addition to the reasons set forth above with respect to the first portion of Applicant arguments, Applicant arguments with respect to Duan are not found to be persuasive. As Kato and Oyama are not relied upon to teach the amended limitations, the associated arguments set forth above are moot.
Applicants respectfully submit that the Examiner's rejection relies on an improper hindsight combination of Kumar (energy redistribution), Duan (battery balancing), Kato (ratio- based discharge synchronization), and Oyama (torque allocation), even though each reference addresses a different technical problem and none suggests modifying Kumar to introduce a charging-exclusion control state. The present disclosure recognizes a distinct problem, namely, charging between independently driven propulsion modules may degrade driving efficiency due to energy conversion loss, and provides a different solution: conditional non-charging rather than improved balancing or redistribution. As amended, the claims explicitly recite a predetermined SOC relationship under which charging power is set to zero, thereby defining charging exclusion as an affirmative operational state and reflecting a fundamentally different energy management philosophy. Because the cited art uniformly treats charging as beneficial when SOC differs and does not suggest that charging may instead be detrimental under certain conditions, the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the claim does not appear to specifically narrow the “predetermined relationship” between the states of charge of the batteries to attain the energy management philosophy that appears to be contemplated by the Applicant in arguments, above. As Kumar discloses in at least Paragraph 0048 wherein charge may be provided between battery assemblies to charge run-down battery assemblies, and Duan teaching a system to determine not to charge individual battery units when all battery unit states of charge fall within the same range as taught by Paragraphs 0048, 0052, & 0054, Examiner respectfully asserts that the disclosure(s) would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine with one another, Duan specifying conditions under which charge transfer between battery units may [and may not] take place.
Thus, for at least these reasons, the rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103, for at least the reasons set forth above, as well as those set forth below with respect to the specific claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2021/0139054 A1) in view of Duan (US 2020/0055405 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kumar discloses: An add-on mobility apparatus configured to be driven by being connected to a front mobility apparatus comprising (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0036 wherein an auxiliary device may include motor and battery devices for operating a vehicle, including a locomotive or the like. At least Paragraph 0024 and Figure 1 of Kumar, below, further teach wherein the auxiliary device(s) may be mounted on a plurality of vehicles coupled to one another [i.e. connected to a front mobility apparatus])
PNG
media_image1.png
236
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of first wheels, at least one first drive motor providing a driving force to the plurality of first wheels, (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraph 0025 wherein the vehicles include propulsion systems, such as traction motors, coupled with axles and/or wheels of the vehicle(s) [i.e. a plurality of first wheels], with individual traction motors being activatable and deactivatable to drive or not drive the corresponding set of wheels [i.e. at least one first drive motor providing a driving force to the plurality of first wheels])
a first high-voltage battery supplying power to the at least one first drive motor, and a first connection mechanism, the add-on mobility apparatus comprising: (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0079 & 0082 a first battery assembly [i.e. a first high-voltage battery] which may be connected to a first motor [i.e. at least one first drive motor] via a first bus [i.e. by a first connection mechanism] to supply power to the first motor [i.e. supplying power to the at least one first drive motor])
a first left wheel and a first right wheel; at least one second drive motor configured to provide a driving force to the first left wheel and the first right wheel; (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraph 0025 wherein the traction motors may be connected with axles and/or wheels of a vehicle [i.e. a first left and right wheel], the traction motors including a second motor of the plurality of motors driving a second set of wheels/second axle as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0085)
a second high-voltage battery configured to supply driving power to the at least one second drive motor, and to supply charging power to the first high-voltage battery…; (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0048 wherein a second battery assembly [i.e. a second high-voltage battery] may supply power to a second motor [i.e. supply driving power to the at least one second drive motor] and may be configured to provide power to another battery assembly whose charge may be depleted [i.e. supply charging power to the first high-voltage battery])
a second connection mechanism mechanically connected to the first connection mechanism; and (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0071 wherein a second battery assembly may include a second bus [i.e. a second connection mechanism] for conducting current from the second battery assembly to the corresponding second traction motor. Kumar further discloses in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0053 wherein two or more battery assemblies buses may be coupled to one another via a switch [i.e. manually connecting the first and second connection mechanism/bus], such that onboard charging may be provided between battery assemblies)
a controller comprising a memory configured to store a computer program for controlling the at least one second drive motor and the second high-voltage battery and a processor configured to execute the computer program, wherein, by the execution of the computer program, the processor is configured to: (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 – 0060 wherein the electric supply system may be configured to be implemented via a controller, including a memory storing a software application [i.e. a controller comprising a memory configured to store a computer program for controlling the at least one second drive motor and the second high-voltage battery] configured to be implemented by one or more processors [i.e. a processor configured to execute the computer program])
determine the driving power and the charging power based on a first state of charge (SOC) of the first high-voltage battery and a second SOC of the second high-voltage battery (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraph 0048 wherein the controller may vary power supplied from battery assemblies to motors and one another based on the states of charge of each battery assembly. In the given example of Paragraph 0048, if the first power supply is fully charged at 100% of capacity, and the second power supply is run down to 30% of capacity, the controller may stop conduction of electricity to a traction motor from the first power supply [i.e. determine a driving power based on a first state of charge of the first high-voltage battery and a second SOC of the second high-voltage battery] and close a switch to provide current from the fully charged first power supply to the run-down second power supply to charge the run-down power supply [i.e. determine the charging power based on a first state of charge of the first high-voltage battery and a second SOC of the second high-voltage battery)
Kumar however appears to be silent regarding:
Wherein the second high-voltage battery is configured to supply charging power to the first high-voltage battery through a DC/DC converter;
wherein the charging power is selectively set to zero under a predetermined relationship between the first SOC and the second SOC.
However Duan teaches wherein power may be supplied between batteries in a vehicle system through a DC/DC converter based on states of charge of the batteries.
Wherein the second high-voltage battery is configured to supply charging power to the first high-voltage battery through a DC/DC converter; (However Duan teaches in at least Paragraph 0012 wherein a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery units may include a plurality of DC/DC converters coupled to the battery units, which may be utilized to distribute current in the battery system, including output and reverse current distributions, as well as between a low-voltage battery and a battery pack for distributing charge therebetween [i.e. charging power is supplied through a DC/DC converter])
wherein the charging power is selectively set to zero under a predetermined relationship between the first SOC and the second SOC. (However Duan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0052 & 0054 wherein battery units in a system are sorted according to state of charge, with each battery being sorted into a respective region. As taught in at least Paragraph 0048, when the state of charge of a battery falls in the mid-range, between an upper and lower threshold, the current flow direction to/from the battery is maintained while the current flow of battery units whose state of charge is above the mid-range are controlled to be discharged until all states of charge are in the same region, with the direction of current flow for undercharged units being negative to charge said units. Thus, when all batteries fall within the same region [i.e. when a predetermined condition is met], the charging power supplied from the second battery to the first is set to zero, as none of the batteries are sufficiently undercharged as to receive charge from other battery units [i.e. the charging power into the battery unit above the mid-range/first unit is selectively set to zero under a predetermined relationship between the first SOC and the second SOC, that relationship being that the states of charge of the respective batteries fall within the same range])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the use of a DC/DC converter to supply charging power between batteries, as well as incorporating the determination to not charge a battery unit based on states of charge of the battery units as taught by Duan.
The motivation to incorporate a DC/DC converter is that, as acknowledged by Duan in at least Paragraphs 0012 & 0030, the voltage between power lines may be converted, ensuring the correct voltage is supplied to each battery or device in the power line, improving the functioning of the charging system.
The motivation to not charge a battery unit based on states of charge of the battery units is that, as acknowledged by Duan in at least Paragraph 0052, a more effective balancing of the states of charge of the battery units can be achieved by increasing the allocated current burden of the most highly charged battery units, or electing not to when the batteries fall within the same SOC range, improving the discharging of the batteries.
Regarding Claim 11:
Kumar discloses: A method of controlling an add-on mobility apparatus configured to (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraph 0021 a method for powering vehicle assemblies with power supply assemblies, including the powering of individual motors by individual battery supplies, and the charging of battery supplies by one another [i.e. a method of controlling an add-on mobility apparatus])
be driven by being connected to a front mobility apparatus comprising a plurality of first wheels, at least one first drive motor providing a driving force to the plurality of first wheels, (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraph 0025 wherein the vehicles include propulsion systems, such as traction motors, coupled with axles and/or wheels of the vehicle(s) [i.e. a plurality of first wheels], with individual traction motors being activatable and deactivatable to drive or not drive the corresponding set of wheels [i.e. at least one first drive motor providing a driving force to the plurality of first wheels])
a first high-voltage battery supplying power to the at least one first drive motor, and a first connection mechanism, wherein the add-on mobility apparatus comprises: (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0079 & 0082 a first battery assembly [i.e. a first high-voltage battery] which may be connected to a first motor [i.e. at least one first drive motor] via a first bus [i.e. by a first connection mechanism] to supply power to the first motor [i.e. supplying power to the at least one first drive motor])
a first left wheel and a first right wheel; at least one second drive motor configured to provide a driving force to the first left wheel and the first right wheel, (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraph 0025 wherein the traction motors may be connected with axles and/or wheels of a vehicle [i.e. a first left and right wheel], the traction motors including a second motor of the plurality of motors driving a second set of wheels/second axle as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0085)
a second high-voltage battery configured to supply driving power to the at least one second drive motor and charging power to the first high-voltage battery…, (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0048 wherein a second battery assembly [i.e. a second high-voltage battery] may supply power to a second motor [i.e. supply driving power to the at least one second drive motor] and may be configured to provide power to another battery assembly whose charge may be depleted)
a second connection mechanism mechanically connected to the first connection mechanism, and (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0071 wherein a second battery assembly may include a second bus [i.e. a second connection mechanism] for conducting current from the second battery assembly to the corresponding second traction motor. Kumar further discloses in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0053 wherein two or more battery assemblies buses may be coupled to one another via a switch [i.e. manually connecting the first and second connection mechanism/bus], such that onboard charging may be provided between battery assemblies)
a controller comprising a non-transitory memory configured to store computer-executable instructions for controlling the at least one second drive motor and the second high-voltage battery, and a processor configured to carry out the computer-executable instructions including operations comprising: (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 – 0060 wherein the electric supply system may be configured to be implemented via a controller, including a memory storing a software application [i.e. a controller comprising a memory configured to store a computer program for controlling the at least one second drive motor and the second high-voltage battery] configured to be implemented by one or more processors [i.e. a processor configured to execute the computer program])
determining, the driving power and the charging power based on a first state of charge (SOC) of the first high-voltage battery and a second SOC of the second high-voltage battery. (Kumar discloses in at least Paragraph 0048 wherein the controller may vary power supplied from battery assemblies to motors and one another based on the states of charge of each battery assembly. In the given example of Paragraph 0048, if the first power supply is fully charged at 100% of capacity, and the second power supply is run down to 30% of capacity, the controller may stop conduction of electricity to a traction motor from the first power supply [i.e. determine a driving power based on a first state of charge of the first high-voltage battery and a second SOC of the second high-voltage battery] and close a switch to provide current from the fully charged first power supply to the run-down second power supply to charge the run-down power supply [i.e. determine the charging power based on a first state of charge of the first high-voltage battery and a second SOC of the second high-voltage battery)
However Duan teaches wherein power may be supplied between batteries in a vehicle system through a DC/DC converter based on states of charge of the batteries.
Wherein the second high-voltage battery is configured to supply charging power to the first high-voltage battery through a DC/DC converter; (However Duan teaches in at least Paragraph 0012 wherein a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery units may include a plurality of DC/DC converters coupled to the battery units, which may be utilized to distribute current in the battery system, including output and reverse current distributions, as well as between a low-voltage battery and a battery pack for distributing charge therebetween [i.e. charging power is supplied through a DC/DC converter])
wherein the charging power is selectively set to zero under a predetermined relationship between the first SOC and the second SOC. (However Duan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0052 & 0054 wherein battery units in a system are sorted according to state of charge, with each battery being sorted into a respective region. As taught in at least Paragraph 0048, when the state of charge of a battery falls in the mid-range, between an upper and lower threshold, the current flow direction to/from the battery is maintained while the current flow of battery units whose state of charge is above the mid-range are controlled to be discharged until all states of charge are in the same region, with the direction of current flow for undercharged units being negative to charge said units. Thus, when all batteries fall within the same region [i.e. when a predetermined condition is met], the charging power supplied from the second battery to the first is set to zero, as none of the batteries are sufficiently undercharged as to receive charge from other battery units [i.e. the charging power into the battery unit above the mid-range/first unit is selectively set to zero under a predetermined relationship between the first SOC and the second SOC, that relationship being that the states of charge of the respective batteries fall within the same range])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the use of a DC/DC converter to supply charging power between batteries, as well as incorporating the determination to not charge a battery unit based on states of charge of the battery units as taught by Duan.
The motivation to incorporate a DC/DC converter is that, as acknowledged by Duan in at least Paragraphs 0012 & 0030, the voltage between power lines may be converted, ensuring the correct voltage is supplied to each battery or device in the power line, improving the functioning of the charging system.
The motivation to not charge a battery unit based on states of charge of the battery units is that, as acknowledged by Duan in at least Paragraph 0052, a more effective balancing of the states of charge of the battery units can be achieved by increasing the allocated current burden of the most highly charged battery units, or electing not to when the batteries fall within the same SOC range, improving the discharging of the batteries.
Claim(s) 2 - 8, 10, 12 - 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2021/0139054 A1) in view of Duan (US 2020/0055405 A1) as applied to claims 1 & 10 above, and further in view of Kato (US 2009/0261658 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The add-on mobility apparatus of claim 1, wherein determining the driving power and the charging power comprises: determining the driving power and the charging power such that the second SOC reaches a second minimum SOC while the first SOC reaches a first minimum SOC.
Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the driving and charging power are determined such that the first and second states of charge reach a minimum at the same time.
However Kato teaches in at least Paragraphs 0064 & 0065 wherein the distribution of discharge power is performed so that the states of charge of the first and second storage devices reach their lower limits at the same time [i.e. determining the driving power and the charging power such that the second SOC reaches a second minimum SOC while the first SOC reaches a first minimum SOC], the distribution of discharge power taking place based on battery unit states of charge as taught in at least Paragraphs 0082 – 0084 of Kato.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the discharge of power such that the minimum states of charge of the battery are reached simultaneously as taught by Kato.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kato in at least Paragraph 0064, by controlling the discharge of the battery units such that a minimum charge is reached at the same time for each battery, the discharging capability of the system as a whole may be maximized, improving system discharge capability.
Regarding Claim 3:
The add-on mobility apparatus of claim 1, wherein determining the driving power and the charging power comprises: determining a driving factor for determining the driving power and a charging factor for determining the charging power, based on the first SOC and the second SOC.
Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a driving and charging factor are determined based on the first and second states of charge.
However Kato teaches in at least Paragraphs 0049 & 0082 – 0084 wherein a discharge distribution calculating unit calculates amounts of electrical power allowed to be discharged from each battery unit based on the states of charge of the storage devices, and the ratio of power between each [i.e. a ratio of the second SOC to the first SOC], resulting in a discharge distribution ratio [i.e. a driving factor, as at least Paragraph 0049 of Kato teaches wherein the electrical power discharged from discharged from the first or second storage device may be provided to the driving force generation unit]. Similarly, at least Paragraphs 0050, 0083, & 0084 of Kato teach wherein a charge distribution ratio may be computed, indicating the ratio of electrical power to be provided to the respective battery units for charging when the power supply system is in a charge mode [i.e. a charging factor for determining the charging power], with power being supplied from the drive force generating unit to the power supply system. However, the charge distribution ratio of Kato appears to be charging from regeneration provided to the storage devices, rather than charging between storage devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the determination of ratios of driving force discharging and battery charging ratios based on the states of charge of the batteries as taught by Kato.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kato in at least Paragraphs 0064 & 0067, by controlling the charge and discharge of the battery units according to charging or discharging ratios based on the respective battery states of charge such that a minimum or maximum charge is reached at the same time for each battery, the discharging capability of the system as a whole may be maximized, improving system discharge capability.
However Duan teaches in at least Paragraph 0038 wherein a distribution ratio [i.e. a charging factor for determining the charging power] is computed for each respective battery unit according to the individual states of each battery unit, which may include being based on the states of charge of each battery unit as taught in at least Paragraphs 0051 & 0052. At least Paragraphs 0051 & 0054 of Duan further teaches wherein the allocated current values may include positive and negative current flow, positive current flow correlating to output from battery units, and negative current flow correlating to charging battery units [i.e. the charging factor includes charging ratios between battery units].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention by incorporating the balancing of power distribution between battery units based on states of charge, including the distribution of power between units as taught by Duan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Duan in at least Paragraph 0052, the distribution of power in a multi-battery system may be improved by more effectively balancing the states of charge for the battery units by increasing the allocated current burden of the most highly charged battery units.
Regarding Claim 4:
The add-on mobility apparatus of claim 3, wherein the charging factor is determined to be zero (0) in response that the first SOC being greater than the second SOC.
Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the charging factor is determined to be zero in response to the first SOC being greater than the second SOC.
However Duan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0052 & 0054 wherein battery units in a system are sorted according to state of charge, with each battery being sorted into a respective region. As taught in at least Paragraph 0048, when the state of charge of a battery falls in the mid-range, the current flow direction to/from the battery is maintained [i.e. no charging/discharging is performed] while the current flow of battery units whose state of charge is above the mid-range are controlled to be discharged until all states of charge are in the same region [i.e. the charging factor into the battery unit above the mid-range/first unit is determined to be zero in response that the first SOC being greater than the second/mid-range battery unit SOC].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the determination to not charge a battery unit based on states of charge of the battery units as taught by Duan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Duan in at least Paragraph 0052, a more effective balancing of the states of charge of the battery units can be achieved by increasing the allocated current burden of the most highly charged battery units, improving the discharging of the batteries.
Regarding Claim 5:
The add-on mobility apparatus of claim 3, wherein the driving factor is determined based on a ratio of the second SOC to the first SOC.
Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the driving factor is determined based on a ratio of the second SOC to the first SOC.
However Kato teaches in at least Paragraphs 0049 & 0082 – 0084 wherein a discharge distribution calculating unit calculates amounts of electrical power allowed to be discharged based on the states of charge of the storage devices, and the ratio of power between each [i.e. a ratio of the second SOC to the first SOC]. At least Paragraph 0049 of Kato teaches wherein the electrical power discharged from discharged from the first or second storage device may be provided to the driving force generation unit [i.e. the ratio is a driving factor].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the determination of driving power provided from electrical storage devices based on the ratio of states of charge between battery units as taught by Kato.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kato in at least Paragraphs 0020 & 0064, by basing discharge distribution on a ratio between states of charge of battery units, the battery unit driving power supplied may be configured such that the battery units reach a minimum state of charge at the same time, improving the power utilization of the vehicle system.
Regarding Claim 6:
The add-on mobility apparatus of claim 3, wherein the driving factor and the charging factor are each determined to be a value greater than zero (0) when the first SOC is smaller than the second SOC.
Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the driving factor and the charging factor are each determined to be a value greater than zero when the first SOC is smaller than the second SOC.
However Kato teaches in at least Paragraphs 0049 & 0082 – 0084 wherein a discharge distribution calculating unit calculates amounts of electrical power allowed to be discharged from each battery unit based on the states of charge of the storage devices, and the ratio of power between each [i.e. a ratio of the second SOC to the first SOC], resulting in a discharge distribution ratio [i.e. a driving factor]. Similarly, at least Paragraphs 0050, 0083, & 0084 of Kato teach wherein a charge distribution ratio may be computed, indicating the ratio of electrical power to be provided to the respective battery units for charging when the power supply system is in a charge mode [i.e. a charging factor for determining the charging power], with power being supplied from the drive force generating unit to the power supply system. At least Paragraphs 0073 – 0075 & 0077 of Kato further teach wherein the charge and discharge ratios are computed based on the relative states of charge of each battery, and thus in each case that the first SOC is smaller than the second SOC, the driving and charging factors of the second battery are greater than zero.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the driving and charging factor to be greater than zero based on the states of charge of the vehicle batteries relative to one another as taught by Kato.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kato in at least Paragraphs 0020 & 0064, by basing discharging and charging distribution on a ratio between states of charge of battery units, the battery unit driving power supplied may be configured such that the battery units reach a minimum or maximum state of charge at the same time, improving the power utilization of the vehicle system.
Regarding Claim 7:
The add-on mobility apparatus of claim 3, wherein the driving factor and the charging factor are determined such that the second SOC matches the first SOC over time, when the first SOC is smaller than the second SOC.
Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the driving factor and the charging factor are determined such that the second SOC matches the first SOC over time, when the first SOC is smaller than the second SOC.
However Kato teaches in at least Paragraphs 0063 – 0065 wherein by varying the distribution of discharge power from the first and second storage devices when the devices are at different charge levels, as taught in at least Paragraph 0082 [i.e. when a first SOC is smaller than a second SOC], the state of charge of the storage devices may be configured to reach lower limits at the same time, the lower limits being identical values in an embodiment, as depicted in at least Figure 5 of Kato, below [i.e. the driving factor and the charging factor are determined such that the second SOC matches the first SOC over time].
PNG
media_image2.png
314
296
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the determination of discharge factors of the vehicle battery units such that the states of charge become equivalent to one another over time as taught by Kato.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kato in at least Paragraph 0064, by configuring the discharging of the battery units such that they reach a minimum state of charge at the same time, the discharging capability of the system may be maximized, improving the power utilization of the vehicle system.
Regarding Claim 8:
The add-on mobility apparatus of claim 7, wherein the charging factor is determined such that the first SOC is maintained until the second SOC matches the first SOC.
Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the charging factor is determined such that the first SOC is maintained until the second SOC matches the first SOC.
However Duan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0052 & 0054 wherein battery units in a system are sorted according to state of charge, with each battery being sorted into a respective region. As taught in at least Paragraph 0048, when the state of charge of a battery falls in the mid-range, the current flow direction to/from the battery is maintained by hysteresis [i.e. the first SOC is maintained] while the current flow of battery units whose state of charge is outside the mid-range are controlled to be either charged or discharged until all states of charge are in the same region [i.e. the charging factor is determined such that the first SOC is maintained until the second SOC matches the first SOC].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the maintaining of battery units in a region of charge until others match the same state of charge as taught by Duan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Duan in at least Paragraph 0052, a more effective balancing of the states of charge of the battery units can be achieved by increasing the allocated current burden of the most highly charged battery units, improving the discharging of the batteries.
Regarding Claim 10:
The add-on mobility apparatus of claim 3, wherein the charging power is determined by multiplying supply power of the at least one first drive motor by the charging factor.
Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the charging power is determined by multiplying supply power of the at least one first drive motor by the charging factor.
However Kato teaches in at least Paragraph 0050 wherein the charge distribution ratio calculated is indicative of a proportion of power to be supplied to first and second electrical storage devices from the power being supplied from the drive force generating unit to the power supply system, the charge distribution ratio being multiplied with a total charging power to determine the power supplied for charging each battery unit as taught in at least Paragraph 0088 [i.e. the charging power is determined by multiplying supply power of the at least one first drive motor by the charging factor].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the determination of charging power for each battery based on a multiplication of the charging factor as taught by Kato.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kato in at least Paragraphs 0050 & 0088, power may be provided to the batteries in a ratio appropriate to the amount which each unit is allowed to be charged, improving the charging optimization of the batteries.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 2, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 3, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 4, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 5, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 6, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 7, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 8, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 10, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2021/0139054 A1) in view of Duan (US 2020/0055405 A1) and Kato (US 2009/0261658 A1) as applied to claims 3 & 13 above, and further in view of Oyama (US 2021/0245608 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
The add-on mobility apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a second driving torque of the at least one second drive motor by multiplying a first driving torque of the at least one first drive motor by the driving factor.
Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the driving torque is determined by multiplying a first driving torque of the at least one first drive motor by the driving factor.
However Oyama teaches in at least Paragraphs 0257 & 0258 wherein the required driving force to be output from each of the first and second drive motors is set by multiplying the determined torque ratios [i.e. the first and second driving factors] by the required power to set the required power for each target drive motor [i.e. a second driving torque of the at least one second drive motor is determined by multiplying a first driving torque of the at least one first drive motor by the driving factor].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kumar by incorporating the multiplying of driving torques by determined torque ratios to determine the driving torques of each motor as taught by Oyama.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Oyama in at least Paragraphs 0257 & 0258, the torque provided to each of the first and second motors may be appropriately set based on the determined torque ratios, improving the control of the vehicle to the appropriate torque level to the battery states of charge.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 9, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Park (US 2017/0021737 A1): Park recites a vehicle system including a main and auxiliary battery, wherein the providing of power to an electrical load is based on states of charge of said batteries. The main and auxiliary battery are connected to one another by a DC-DC converter, and charge may be passed therebetween.
Komatsu (US 2012/0049771 A1): Komatsu recites a vehicle system, including a master battery and multiple slave batteries, wherein the discharge of the batteries is based in part on the states of charge of the batteries. State of charge in battery cells may be balanced with one another to extend the usable lifespan of the vehicle battery system.
Salasoo (US 2010/0019718 A1): Salasoo recites a vehicle system including a plurality of battery modules, with secondary battery modules being configured to provide power to primary battery modules based on factors such as the states of charge of each of the plurality of battery modules. Additional factors, including age and capacity of each battery module, may be taken into account in determining a rate of transfer between battery modules.
Li (US 2019/0225092 A1): Li recites a vehicle system with a plurality of battery modules, each battery module having a different energy density, with one battery pack being prioritized over the other(s) for charging. Connection of battery pack(s) to the load or charge source may take place on the basis of the state(s) of charge of the battery packs relative to a predetermined threshold, or by comparison of the state(s) of charge to one another.
Ye (US 2020/0223422 A1): Ye recites a battery pack balancing system for a motor vehicle, including the comparison of characteristics of a plurality of battery packs to determine if the difference between battery packs is above a threshold. In response to such a determination, a command may be provided to control charging between the batteries to reduce a capacity difference in the battery packs to below a predetermined threshold.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights