DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 11, and 13-24 are pending. Claims dated 05/13/2026 are being examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previously set forth rejections. Accordingly, the Examiner has withdrawn the previously set forth rejections to the claims.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Horita is not directed to a battery fault and accordingly has no concept of mitigation actions responsive to such a fault, much less an energy load attributable to those mitigation actions that is consolidated with the energy consumption of the driving task for purposes of estimating the available mileage” (p. 10 of remarks). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above points for the following reasons:
Horita teaches a battery fault
Horita monitors risk of battery shortage and provides mitigation actions such as providing alternative detour routes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of Applicant’s specification, a battery shortage is interpreted as a battery fault. The different risk levels in Horita (i.e., FIG. 10 risk level high”) correspond to different severity levels. Applicant’s specification at least [0034] describes a battery fault may be determined based on state of charge data 106a. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with Applicant’s disclosure that a battery fault may be determined based on state of charge data, the disclosed battery shortage determined based on state of charge data in Horita reasonably corresponds to the claimed battery fault.
Horita teaches mitigation actions responsive to risk of battery shortage
At least FIGs. 10-11 of Horita show displaying of recommended solutions 516 including detour routes in response to risk of battery shortage. Applicant’s claim 4 describes a mitigation action may be generating a new navigation route. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with Applicant’s disclosure that a mitigation action may be generating a new navigation route, the disclosed recommended solutions in Horita reasonably corresponds to the claimed mitigation actions.
Horita teaches an energy load attributable to those mitigation actions that is consolidated with the energy consumption of a driving task for purposes of estimating the available mileage
The energy load attributable to mitigation actions in Horita corresponds to the total energy required to perform the recommended solution(s). As disclosed in [0107], Horita determines “the estimated battery consumption when traveling to the destination, e.g., based on the driving distance of the route from the current position and the position of the destination and estimated travelling time from the current position of the vehicle 4 to the destination position, the electricity mileage of the vehicle 4, the electricity devices usage of the electric devices (e.g. devices 12 and 13) of the vehicle 4 and/or the weather information 125”.
Applicant further argues, “Du and Horita fail to disclose prompting, via the communication system, the occupant of the vehicle to confirm whether to finish the current route when the estimated available mileage exceeds the remaining route distance and the service distance to the service center location. Horita, by contrast, only notifies the user and presents recommended solutions (516) when the estimated risk of battery shortage exceeds a predetermined threshold (i.e., when there is insufficient range to safely complete the trip as planned). While the recommendation solution (516) of Horita includes an option to "Select Best," "Check Others," or "Ignore" the recommended solutions (516), Horita is silent as to issuing any prompt under the affirmative condition of the estimated available mileage exceeding the remaining route distance and the service distance to the service center location. Instead, the recommended solutions (516) of Horita are oriented toward avoiding a shortage rather than confirming continuation of the current route in light of an available range relative to a service center” (p. 10 of remarks). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above points for the following reasons:
Horita issues a prompt when estimated available mileage exceeds a remaining route distance
The claimed prompt is shown in Horita, at least FIG. 10, the recommended solutions 516 presenting "Select Best," "Check Others," or "Ignore". The recommended solutions show detour routes that the vehicle is capable of reaching without full battery shortage. An estimated available mileage must exceed a remaining route distance to a detour route destination, as otherwise, the vehicle would not be able to perform the presented recommended solution.
Horita also issues a prompt when estimated available mileage exceeds a service distance to a service center location
In at least Horita FIG. 11, the recommended solutions shows that the detour route destination may in some cases be a service station, i.e., a charging station (where in this case, the estimated available mileage must exceed the service distance to the service center location).
In view of the above, the rejections based on Du, in view of Horita are substantially maintained. Claim 23 is rejected under a new ground of rejection.
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 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.
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, 4-8, 10-11, 13-17, 19, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US-20230288490-A1), in view of Horita (US-20130226441-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Du and Horita respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Du teaches a computer-implemented method when executed by data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a monitoring application, battery data of a battery of a vehicle ([0209] In this embodiment of this application, both the first original data set and the second original data set include data obtained from the vehicle through collection, and a difference is that the first original data set may be used to preliminarily diagnose the battery and the second original data set may be used to deeply diagnose the battery; [0212] For example, the vehicle may collect data of the vehicle including battery-related data through the BMS);
detecting, via the monitoring application, a battery event based on the received battery data ([0170] In operation 220, the cloud BMS preliminarily diagnoses a battery based on the first original data set, and sends a risk warning to the vehicle based on the preliminary diagnosis for the battery; [0221] In operation 240, the vehicle and/or the cloud BMS deeply diagnose/diagnoses the battery based on the second original data set, to determine the fault level of the battery);
estimating, via a fault mitigation algorithm, a severity level of the battery event, the severity level being one of a first level and a second level ([0222] For example, each fault type of the battery may be divided into three fault levels: a fault level 1, a fault level 2, and a fault level 3; [0227] the preliminary diagnosis or the deep diagnosis uses one or more algorithms of mechanism analysis, knowledge graph and reasoning, big data analysis, digital twin digital, or analog simulation);
executing, via the fault mitigation algorithm, mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level; and ([0041] Therefore, when it is predicted that the battery has a fault, the vehicle may control the battery in advance in an OTA upgrade manner, thereby avoiding further deterioration of the battery fault and reducing the accident occurrence rate)
[…] and communicating, via the communication system, a fault status and a mitigation plan based on the executed mitigation actions ([0187] For example, the risk level 1 may warn the driver to pull in to deeply diagnose the vehicle in a next time of a routine check on the vehicle, the risk level 2 may warn the driver to pull in to deeply diagnose the vehicle within several days, and the risk level 3 may warn the driver to immediately pull in to deeply diagnose the vehicle; [0261] the cloud BMS may present, based on a display module, the determined fault level of the battery to the operation and maintenance personnel of the vehicle vendor, whereby the operation and maintenance personnel of the vehicle vendor may control the vehicle based on the fault level of the battery, to ensure safety of the vehicle; [0286] The processing module 630 may be further configured to adjust a maximum degree of charge and/or a maximum depth of discharge of the battery according to the charge/discharge adjustment policy).
Du does not explicitly teach consolidating an energy consumption of driving tasks with an energy load of the mitigation actions; estimating, via the fault mitigation algorithm, an available mileage based on the consolidated energy consumption: prompting, via a communication system of the vehicle, an occupant of the vehicle to confirm whether to finish a current route when the estimated available mileage exceeds a remaining route distance and a service distance to a service center location.
However, Horita teaches consolidating an energy consumption of driving tasks with an energy load of the mitigation actions (FIGS. 10-11 risk information 515 showing risk level and recommended solutions 516 to resolve risk level based on battery consumed; [0107] If the occurrence of a battery shortage is selected as a risk-monitoring item, for example, the risk calculation unit 112 determines the estimated battery consumption when traveling to the destination, e.g., based on the driving distance of the route from the current position and the position of the destination and estimated travelling time from the current position of the vehicle 4 to the destination position, the electricity mileage of the vehicle 4, the electricity devices usage of the electric devices (e.g. devices 12 and 13) of the vehicle 4 and/or the weather information 125);
estimating, via the fault mitigation algorithm, an available mileage based on the consolidated energy consumption (FIGS. 10-11 recommended solutions 516; [0082] The vehicle information 122 may include […] the electricity mileage (e.g. the remaining travelable distance based on the battery status the electricity devices usage status, map information and/or road information); [0133] In this case, the risk informing screen 600 shows one of them initially (here: “1. Detour Route”, including information on the best candidate of available alternative routes such as distance, estimated arrival time, and the changed risk level associated with the alternative route) and allows the user to display the other solutions)
prompting, via a communication system of the vehicle, an occupant of the vehicle to confirm whether to finish a current route when the estimated available mileage exceeds a remaining route distance and a service distance to a service center location (FIGS. 10-11 recommended solutions 516 where FIG. 10 allows an occupant to confirm the solution by “select best”, “check others”, or “ignore”; [0135] If the “ignore” button is selected (step S124 returns No), the warning screen is closed and the main screen is displayed again (step S101).)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Du, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include consolidating an energy consumption of driving tasks with an energy load of the mitigation actions; estimating, via the fault mitigation algorithm, an available mileage based on the consolidated energy consumption: prompting, via a communication system of the vehicle, an occupant of the vehicle to confirm whether to finish a current route when the estimated available mileage exceeds a remaining route distance and a service distance to a service center location, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so “may further improve the support for the user since it becomes possible not only to warn the user but additionally provide recommended solutions involving recommendations for potential alternative routes” (Horita [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Du, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 1.
Du, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein executing the mitigation plan includes generating, based on the available mileage, a new navigation route.
However, Horita also teaches wherein executing the mitigation plan includes generating, based on the available mileage, a new navigation route (FIGS. 10-11 recommended solutions 516; [0082] The vehicle information 122 may include […] the electricity mileage (e.g. the remaining travelable distance based on the battery status the electricity devices usage status, map information and/or road information); [0133] In this case, the risk informing screen 600 shows one of them initially (here: “1. Detour Route”, including information on the best candidate of available alternative routes such as distance, estimated arrival time, and the changed risk level associated with the alternative route) and allows the user to display the other solutions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Du, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include wherein executing the mitigation plan includes generating, based on the available mileage, a new navigation route, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so “may further improve the support for the user since it becomes possible not only to warn the user but additionally provide recommended solutions involving recommendations for potential alternative routes” (Horita [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Du, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 1.
Du, as modified, does not explicitly teach further including: identifying, via a navigation application, the service center location; identifying, via the navigation application, the remaining route distance based on a vehicle location and a destination location; and comparing the estimated available mileage with the service distance to the service center location and the remaining route distance.
However, Horita also teaches further including: identifying, via a navigation application, the service center location (FIGS. 10-11 recommended solutions 516; [0112] If one or more such available charging stations can be identified on the basis of the charging station information 124 and the vehicle information 122, the solution suggestion unit 115 can set battery charging as one of the recommended solutions);
identifying, via the navigation application, the remaining route distance based on a vehicle location and a destination location; and (FIG. 10 showing remaining distance in recommended solutions 516)
comparing the estimated available mileage with the service distance to the service center location and the remaining route distance (FIGS. 10-11 showing check others in recommended solutions 516; [0082] The vehicle information 122 may include […] the electricity mileage (e.g. the remaining travelable distance based on the battery status the electricity devices usage status, map information and/or road information); [0112] Moreover, if it is determined that the main reason for the increased risk of the occurrence of a battery shortage lies in a traffic jam, road works or a traffic accident along the currently set route, the solution suggestion unit 115 can calculate one or more alternative routes from the current position to the destination position and check whether there exists an alternative route which require less battery consumption leading to a decreased risk of the occurrence of a battery shortage. If such an alternative route is found, the solution suggestion unit 115 can also set the detour route as another option of the recommended solutions; [0133] In this case, the risk informing screen 600 shows one of them initially (here: “1. Detour Route”, including information on the best candidate of available alternative routes such as distance, estimated arrival time, and the changed risk level associated with the alternative route) and allows the user to display the other solutions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Du, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include further including: identifying, via a navigation application, the service center location; identifying, via the navigation application, the remaining route distance based on a vehicle location and a destination location; and comparing the estimated available mileage with the service distance to the service center location and the remaining route distance, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so “may further improve the support for the user since it becomes possible not only to warn the user but additionally provide recommended solutions involving recommendations for potential alternative routes” (Horita [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Du teaches the method of Claim 1.
Du also teaches wherein the mitigation actions include at least one of activating a chiller and discharging the battery ([0026] When the battery may have a fault risk, an OTA upgrade package is sent to the vehicle, whereby the vehicle adjusts a maximum degree of charge and/or a maximum depth of discharge of the battery based on the OTA upgrade package, and controls the battery in advance, thereby avoiding further deterioration of the battery fault and reducing the accident occurrence rate. For example, a risk of spontaneous combustion or explosion caused by the fault in the battery may be reduced).
Examiner Note: The broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s disclosure of the recitation of “at least one of” A and B is interpreted as only requiring one element of the group for the claim limitation to be met. This interpretation is supported by Applicant’s specification, for example, para. [0037] and [0047] where mitigation actions may include activating the chiller 110 but not requiring a discharge of the battery, vice versa.
Regarding claim 7, Du teaches the method of Claim 1.
Du also teaches wherein communicating the fault status includes issuing an alert ([0261] In the foregoing embodiments, the cloud BMS may present, based on a display module, the determined fault level of the battery to the operation and maintenance personnel of the vehicle vendor, whereby the operation and maintenance personnel of the vehicle vendor may control the vehicle based on the fault level of the battery, to ensure safety of the vehicle).
Du does not explicitly teach that the alert is “at an infotainment system of the vehicle”.
However, Horita teaches an alert is “at an infotainment system of the vehicle” ([0076] The risk notification unit 113 is configured to issue a notification to the driver and/or the passengers of the vehicle 4 via the communication unit 130 through the network N and via an HMI device (e.g. via an HMI of the on-board unit 5 and/or via an HMI of the mobile unit 7) being equipped in or being connected to the vehicle 4, based on the information on the risk as calculated by the risk calculation unit 112).
Horita also teaches the interchangeability of where the alert is displayed – i.e. in [0068] disclosing “[o]n the other hand, an HMI device, which is embodied by the on-board apparatus 5 above, is not necessarily to be directly equipped in the vehicle 4. Alternatively, there may be provided an independent HMI device such as a mobile unit 7, which is not directly equipped in the vehicle 4, but can be carried by the driver or another passenger of the vehicle 4 as another device that may provide a user the functionality of accessing the vehicle-related information services similarly to the above-described on-board apparatus 5”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the displaying taught in Du to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include that the alert is “at an infotainment system of the vehicle”, with a reasonable expectation of success since it becomes possible to warn the user (Horita [0017]).
Regarding claim 8, Du teaches the method of Claim 1.
Du also teaches wherein estimating the severity level includes determining the severity level is the second level ([0222] For example, each fault type of the battery may be divided into three fault levels: a fault level 1, a fault level 2, and a fault level 3).
Regarding claim 10, Du teaches a fault mitigation system for a vehicle, the fault mitigation system comprising:
data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising ([0278] As shown in FIG. 6, the battery fault diagnosis apparatus 600 may include a transceiver module 610 and an obtaining module 620. The battery fault diagnosis apparatus 600 may be configured to perform the operations performed by the vehicle in the method 200. In an embodiment, the apparatus may be a vehicle or a vehicle BMS, or a component configured in the vehicle or the vehicle BMS, such as a chip or a chip system):
receiving, at a monitoring application, battery data of a battery of the vehicle; detecting, via the monitoring application, a battery event based on the received battery data ([0209] In this embodiment of this application, both the first original data set and the second original data set include data obtained from the vehicle through collection, and a difference is that the first original data set may be used to preliminarily diagnose the battery and the second original data set may be used to deeply diagnose the battery; [0212] For example, the vehicle may collect data of the vehicle including battery-related data through the BMS);
estimating, via a fault mitigation algorithm, a severity level of the battery event, the severity level being one of a first level and a second level ([0222] For example, each fault type of the battery may be divided into three fault levels: a fault level 1, a fault level 2, and a fault level 3; [0227] the preliminary diagnosis or the deep diagnosis uses one or more algorithms of mechanism analysis, knowledge graph and reasoning, big data analysis, digital twin digital, or analog simulation);
executing, via the fault mitigation algorithm, mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level; and ([0041] Therefore, when it is predicted that the battery has a fault, the vehicle may control the battery in advance in an OTA upgrade manner, thereby avoiding further deterioration of the battery fault and reducing the accident occurrence rate)
[…] communicating, via the communication system, a fault status and a mitigation plan based on the executed mitigation actions ([0187] For example, the risk level 1 may warn the driver to pull in to deeply diagnose the vehicle in a next time of a routine check on the vehicle, the risk level 2 may warn the driver to pull in to deeply diagnose the vehicle within several days, and the risk level 3 may warn the driver to immediately pull in to deeply diagnose the vehicle; [0261] the cloud BMS may present, based on a display module, the determined fault level of the battery to the operation and maintenance personnel of the vehicle vendor, whereby the operation and maintenance personnel of the vehicle vendor may control the vehicle based on the fault level of the battery, to ensure safety of the vehicle; [0286] The processing module 630 may be further configured to adjust a maximum degree of charge and/or a maximum depth of discharge of the battery according to the charge/discharge adjustment policy).
Du does not explicitly teach consolidating an energy consumption of driving tasks with an energy load of the mitigation actions; estimating, via the fault mitigation algorithm, an available mileage based on the consolidated energy consumption: prompting, via a communication system of the vehicle, an occupant of the vehicle to confirm whether to finish a current route when the estimated available mileage exceeds a remaining route distance and a service distance to a service center location.
However, Horita teaches consolidating an energy consumption of driving tasks with an energy load of the mitigation actions (FIGS. 10-11 risk information 515 showing risk level and recommended solutions 516 to resolve risk level based on battery consumed; [0107] If the occurrence of a battery shortage is selected as a risk-monitoring item, for example, the risk calculation unit 112 determines the estimated battery consumption when traveling to the destination, e.g., based on the driving distance of the route from the current position and the position of the destination and estimated travelling time from the current position of the vehicle 4 to the destination position, the electricity mileage of the vehicle 4, the electricity devices usage of the electric devices (e.g. devices 12 and 13) of the vehicle 4 and/or the weather information 125);
estimating, via the fault mitigation algorithm, an available mileage based on the consolidated energy consumption (FIGS. 10-11 recommended solutions 516; [0082] The vehicle information 122 may include […] the electricity mileage (e.g. the remaining travelable distance based on the battery status the electricity devices usage status, map information and/or road information); [0133] In this case, the risk informing screen 600 shows one of them initially (here: “1. Detour Route”, including information on the best candidate of available alternative routes such as distance, estimated arrival time, and the changed risk level associated with the alternative route) and allows the user to display the other solutions)
prompting, via a communication system of the vehicle, an occupant of the vehicle to confirm whether to finish a current route when the estimated available mileage exceeds a remaining route distance and a service distance to a service center location (FIGS. 10-11 recommended solutions 516 where FIG. 10 allows an occupant to confirm the solution by “select best”, “check others”, or “ignore”; [0135] If the “ignore” button is selected (step S124 returns No), the warning screen is closed and the main screen is displayed again (step S101).)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Du, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include consolidating an energy consumption of driving tasks with an energy load of the mitigation actions; estimating, via the fault mitigation algorithm, an available mileage based on the consolidated energy consumption: prompting, via a communication system of the vehicle, an occupant of the vehicle to confirm whether to finish a current route when the estimated available mileage exceeds a remaining route distance and a service distance to a service center location, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so “may further improve the support for the user since it becomes possible not only to warn the user but additionally provide recommended solutions involving recommendations for potential alternative routes” (Horita [0017]).
Regarding claim 11, Du teaches the fault mitigation system of Claim 10.
Du also teaches wherein the severity level is the first level ([0222] For example, each fault type of the battery may be divided into three fault levels: a fault level 1, a fault level 2, and a fault level 3).
Regarding claim 13, Du, as modified, teaches the fault mitigation system of Claim 10.
Du, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein executing the mitigation plan includes generating, based on the available mileage, a new navigation route.
However, Horita also teaches wherein executing the mitigation plan includes generating, based on the available mileage, a new navigation route (FIGS. 10-11 recommended solutions 516; [0082] The vehicle information 122 may include […] the electricity mileage (e.g. the remaining travelable distance based on the battery status the electricity devices usage status, map information and/or road information); [0133] In this case, the risk informing screen 600 shows one of them initially (here: “1. Detour Route”, including information on the best candidate of available alternative routes such as distance, estimated arrival time, and the changed risk level associated with the alternative route) and allows the user to display the other solutions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Du, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include wherein executing the mitigation plan includes generating, based on the available mileage, a new navigation route, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so “may further improve the support for the user since it becomes possible not only to warn the user but additionally provide recommended solutions involving recommendations for potential alternative routes” (Horita [0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Du, as modified, teaches the fault mitigation system of Claim 10.
Du, as modified, does not explicitly teach further including: identifying, via a navigation application, the service center location; identifying, via the navigation application, the remaining route distance based on a vehicle location and a destination location; and comparing the estimated available mileage with the service distance to the service center location and the remaining route distance.
However, Horita also teaches further including: identifying, via a navigation application, the service center location (FIGS. 10-11 recommended solutions 516; [0112] If one or more such available charging stations can be identified on the basis of the charging station information 124 and the vehicle information 122, the solution suggestion unit 115 can set battery charging as one of the recommended solutions);
identifying, via the navigation application, the remaining route distance based on a vehicle location and a destination location; and (FIG. 10 showing remaining distance in recommended solutions 516)
comparing the estimated available mileage with the service distance to the service center location and the remaining route distance (FIGS. 10-11 showing check others in recommended solutions 516; [0082] The vehicle information 122 may include […] the electricity mileage (e.g. the remaining travelable distance based on the battery status the electricity devices usage status, map information and/or road information); [0112] Moreover, if it is determined that the main reason for the increased risk of the occurrence of a battery shortage lies in a traffic jam, road works or a traffic accident along the currently set route, the solution suggestion unit 115 can calculate one or more alternative routes from the current position to the destination position and check whether there exists an alternative route which require less battery consumption leading to a decreased risk of the occurrence of a battery shortage. If such an alternative route is found, the solution suggestion unit 115 can also set the detour route as another option of the recommended solutions; [0133] In this case, the risk informing screen 600 shows one of them initially (here: “1. Detour Route”, including information on the best candidate of available alternative routes such as distance, estimated arrival time, and the changed risk level associated with the alternative route) and allows the user to display the other solutions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Du, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include further including: identifying, via a navigation application, the service center location; identifying, via the navigation application, the remaining route distance based on a vehicle location and a destination location; and comparing the estimated available mileage with the service distance to the service center location and the remaining route distance, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so “may further improve the support for the user since it becomes possible not only to warn the user but additionally provide recommended solutions involving recommendations for potential alternative routes” (Horita [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, Du teaches the fault mitigation system of Claim 10.
Du also teaches wherein the mitigation actions include at least one of activating a chiller and discharging the battery ([0026] When the battery may have a fault risk, an OTA upgrade package is sent to the vehicle, whereby the vehicle adjusts a maximum degree of charge and/or a maximum depth of discharge of the battery based on the OTA upgrade package, and controls the battery in advance, thereby avoiding further deterioration of the battery fault and reducing the accident occurrence rate. For example, a risk of spontaneous combustion or explosion caused by the fault in the battery may be reduced).
Examiner Note: The broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s disclosure of the recitation of “at least one of” A and B is interpreted as only requiring one element of the group for the claim limitation to be met. This interpretation is supported by Applicant’s specification, for example, para. [0037] and [0047] where mitigation actions may include activating the chiller 110 but not requiring a discharge of the battery, vice versa.
Regarding claim 16, Du teaches the fault mitigation system of Claim 10.
Du also teaches wherein communicating the fault status includes issuing an alert ([0261] In the foregoing embodiments, the cloud BMS may present, based on a display module, the determined fault level of the battery to the operation and maintenance personnel of the vehicle vendor, whereby the operation and maintenance personnel of the vehicle vendor may control the vehicle based on the fault level of the battery, to ensure safety of the vehicle).
Du does not explicitly teach that the alert is “at an infotainment system of the vehicle”.
However, Horita teaches an alert is “at an infotainment system of the vehicle” ([0076] The risk notification unit 113 is configured to issue a notification to the driver and/or the passengers of the vehicle 4 via the communication unit 130 through the network N and via an HMI device (e.g. via an HMI of the on-board unit 5 and/or via an HMI of the mobile unit 7) being equipped in or being connected to the vehicle 4, based on the information on the risk as calculated by the risk calculation unit 112).
Horita also teaches the interchangeability of where the alert is displayed – i.e. in [0068] disclosing “[o]n the other hand, an HMI device, which is embodied by the on-board apparatus 5 above, is not necessarily to be directly equipped in the vehicle 4. Alternatively, there may be provided an independent HMI device such as a mobile unit 7, which is not directly equipped in the vehicle 4, but can be carried by the driver or another passenger of the vehicle 4 as another device that may provide a user the functionality of accessing the vehicle-related information services similarly to the above-described on-board apparatus 5”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the displaying taught in Du to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include that the alert is “at an infotainment system of the vehicle”, with a reasonable expectation of success since it becomes possible to warn the user (Horita [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Du teaches the fault mitigation system of Claim 10.
Du also teaches wherein estimating the severity level includes determining the severity level is the second level ([0222] For example, each fault type of the battery may be divided into three fault levels: a fault level 1, a fault level 2, and a fault level 3).
Regarding claim 19, Du teaches a fault mitigation system for a vehicle, the fault mitigation system comprising:
data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising ([0278] As shown in FIG. 6, the battery fault diagnosis apparatus 600 may include a transceiver module 610 and an obtaining module 620. The battery fault diagnosis apparatus 600 may be configured to perform the operations performed by the vehicle in the method 200. In an embodiment, the apparatus may be a vehicle or a vehicle BMS, or a component configured in the vehicle or the vehicle BMS, such as a chip or a chip system):
receiving, at a monitoring application, battery data of a battery of the vehicle ([0209] In this embodiment of this application, both the first original data set and the second original data set include data obtained from the vehicle through collection, and a difference is that the first original data set may be used to preliminarily diagnose the battery and the second original data set may be used to deeply diagnose the battery; [0212] For example, the vehicle may collect data of the vehicle including battery-related data through the BMS);
detecting, via the monitoring application, a battery event based on the received battery data ([0170] In operation 220, the cloud BMS preliminarily diagnoses a battery based on the first original data set, and sends a risk warning to the vehicle based on the preliminary diagnosis for the battery; [0221] In operation 240, the vehicle and/or the cloud BMS deeply diagnose/diagnoses the battery based on the second original data set, to determine the fault level of the battery);
estimating, via a fault mitigation algorithm, a severity level of the battery event, the severity level being one of a first level and a second level ([0222] For example, each fault type of the battery may be divided into three fault levels: a fault level 1, a fault level 2, and a fault level 3; [0227] the preliminary diagnosis or the deep diagnosis uses one or more algorithms of mechanism analysis, knowledge graph and reasoning, big data analysis, digital twin digital, or analog simulation);
executing, via the fault mitigation algorithm, mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level ([0041] Therefore, when it is predicted that the battery has a fault, the vehicle may control the battery in advance in an OTA upgrade manner, thereby avoiding further deterioration of the battery fault and reducing the accident occurrence rate);
[…] communicating, via the communication system, a fault status and a mitigation plan based on the executed mitigation actions ([0187] For example, the risk level 1 may warn the driver to pull in to deeply diagnose the vehicle in a next time of a routine check on the vehicle, the risk level 2 may warn the driver to pull in to deeply diagnose the vehicle within several days, and the risk level 3 may warn the driver to immediately pull in to deeply diagnose the vehicle; [0261] the cloud BMS may present, based on a display module, the determined fault level of the battery to the operation and maintenance personnel of the vehicle vendor, whereby the operation and maintenance personnel of the vehicle vendor may control the vehicle based on the fault level of the battery, to ensure safety of the vehicle; [0286] The processing module 630 may be further configured to adjust a maximum degree of charge and/or a maximum depth of discharge of the battery according to the charge/discharge adjustment policy).
Du does not explicitly teach consolidating an energy consumption of driving tasks with an energy load of the mitigation actions; estimating an available mileage based on the consolidated energy consumption; identifying, via a navigation application, a service center location; identifying, via the navigation application, a route distance based on a vehicle location and a destination location; comparing the route distance with a service distance to the service center location and the estimated available mileage; generating, based on the available mileage, a new navigation route; prompting, via a communication system of the vehicle, an occupant of the vehicle to confirm whether to finish a current route when the estimated available mileage exceeds a remaining route distance and a service distance to a service center location.
However, Horita teaches consolidating an energy consumption of driving tasks with an energy load of the mitigation actions (FIGS. 10-11 risk information 515 showing risk level and recommended solutions 516 to resolve risk level based on battery consumed; [0107] If the occurrence of a battery shortage is selected as a risk-monitoring item, for example, the risk calculation unit 112 determines the estimated battery consumption when traveling to the destination, e.g., based on the driving distance of the route from the current position and the position of the destination and estimated travelling time from the current position of the vehicle 4 to the destination position, the electricity mileage of the vehicle 4, the electricity devices usage of the electric devices (e.g. devices 12 and 13) of the vehicle 4 and/or the weather information 125);
estimating an available mileage based on the consolidated energy consumption (FIGS. 10-11 risk information 515 showing risk level and recommended solutions 516 to resolve risk level based on battery consumed; [0082] The vehicle information 122 may include […] the electricity mileage (e.g. the remaining travelable distance based on the battery status the electricity devices usage status, map information and/or road information); [0133] In this case, the risk informing screen 600 shows one of them initially (here: “1. Detour Route”, including information on the best candidate of available alternative routes such as distance, estimated arrival time, and the changed risk level associated with the alternative route) and allows the user to display the other solutions);
identifying, via a navigation application, a service center location (FIGS. 10-11 recommended solutions 516; [0112] If one or more such available charging stations can be identified on the basis of the charging station information 124 and the vehicle information 122, the solution suggestion unit 115 can set battery charging as one of the recommended solutions);
identifying, via the navigation application, a route distance based on a vehicle location and a destination location; and (FIG. 10 showing remaining distance in recommended solutions 516)
comparing the route distance with a service distance to the service center location and the estimated available mileage (FIGS. 10-11 showing check others in recommended solutions 516; [0082] The vehicle information 122 may include […] the electricity mileage (e.g. the remaining travelable distance based on the battery status the electricity devices usage status, map information and/or road information); [0112] Moreover, if it is determined that the main reason for the increased risk of the occurrence of a battery shortage lies in a traffic jam, road works or a traffic accident along the currently set route, the solution suggestion unit 115 can calculate one or more alternative routes from the current position to the destination position and check whether there exists an alternative route which require less battery consumption leading to a decreased risk of the occurrence of a battery shortage. If such an alternative route is found, the solution suggestion unit 115 can also set the detour route as another option of the recommended solutions; [0133] In this case, the risk informing screen 600 shows one of them initially (here: “1. Detour Route”, including information on the best candidate of available alternative routes such as distance, estimated arrival time, and the changed risk level associated with the alternative route) and allows the user to display the other solutions)
generating, based on the available mileage, a new navigation route (FIGS. 10-11 risk information 515 showing risk level and recommended solutions 516 to resolve risk level based on battery consumed; [0082] The vehicle information 122 may include […] the electricity mileage (e.g. the remaining travelable distance based on the battery status the electricity devices usage status, map information and/or road information); [0133] In this case, the risk informing screen 600 shows one of them initially (here: “1. Detour Route”, including information on the best candidate of available alternative routes such as distance, estimated arrival time, and the changed risk level associated with the alternative route) and allows the user to display the other solutions)
prompting, via a communication system of the vehicle, an occupant of the vehicle to confirm whether to finish a current route when the estimated available mileage exceeds a remaining route distance and a service distance to a service center location (FIGS. 10-11 recommended solutions 516 where FIG. 10 allows an occupant to confirm the solution by “select best”, “check others”, or “ignore”; [0135] If the “ignore” button is selected (step S124 returns No), the warning screen is closed and the main screen is displayed again (step S101).)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Du, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include consolidating an energy consumption of driving tasks with an energy load of the mitigation actions; estimating an available mileage based on the consolidated energy consumption; identifying, via a navigation application, a service center location; identifying, via the navigation application, a route distance based on a vehicle location and a destination location; comparing the route distance with a service distance to the service center location and the estimated available mileage; generating, based on the available mileage, a new navigation route; prompting, via a communication system of the vehicle, an occupant of the vehicle to confirm whether to finish a current route when the estimated available mileage exceeds a remaining route distance and a service distance to a service center location, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so “may further improve the support for the user since it becomes possible not only to warn the user but additionally provide recommended solutions involving recommendations for potential alternative routes” (Horita [0017]).
Regarding claim 21, Du, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 1.
Du, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein executing the mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level includes adjusting the mitigation actions based on the available mileage to extend an operational life of the battery of the vehicle.
However, Horita also teaches wherein executing the mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level includes adjusting the mitigation actions based on the available mileage to extend an operational life of the battery of the vehicle (FIGs. 10-11 different recommended solutions are presented based on the available mileage to go to detour route. As available mileage decreases, previously available solutions may not be available).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Du, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include wherein executing the mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level includes adjusting the mitigation actions based on the available mileage to extend an operational life of the battery of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so “may further improve the support for the user since it becomes possible not only to warn the user but additionally provide recommended solutions involving recommendations for potential alternative routes” (Horita [0017]).
Regarding claim 24, Du, as modified, teaches the fault mitigation system of Claim 10.
Du, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein executing the mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level includes adjusting the mitigation actions based on the available mileage to extend an operational life of the battery of the vehicle.
However, Horita also teaches wherein executing the mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level includes adjusting the mitigation actions based on the available mileage to extend an operational life of the battery of the vehicle (FIGs. 10-11 different recommended solutions are presented based on the available mileage to go to detour route. As available mileage decreases, previously available solutions may not be available).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Du, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Horita to include wherein executing the mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level includes adjusting the mitigation actions based on the available mileage to extend an operational life of the battery of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so “may further improve the support for the user since it becomes possible not only to warn the user but additionally provide recommended solutions involving recommendations for potential alternative routes” (Horita [0017]).
Claims 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, in view of Horita, in view of Furguson et al. (US-20230089243-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Furguson.
Regarding claim 18, Du, as modified, teaches the fault mitigation system of Claim 17.
Du does not explicitly teach wherein executing the mitigation actions includes reducing a speed of the vehicle and communicating the fault status and mitigation actions includes issuing an alert to stop the vehicle and exit the vehicle.
However, Furguson teaches wherein executing the mitigation actions includes reducing a speed of the vehicle ([0044] In response to a thermal runaway or potential thermal runaway, the battery controller 230 can stop or reduce power drawn from the battery 150. The battery controller 230 may instruct the battery 150 to enter a low-power or reduced functionality mode, e.g., a mode that enables the EV 110 to travel at a low speed, or a mode that enables the EV 110 to provide alerts to riders, but not to travel)
and communicating the fault status and mitigation actions includes issuing an alert to stop the vehicle and exit the vehicle ([0049] In response to a signal indicating that the battery 150 is experiencing out-gassing, the risk mitigation controller 250 provides an alert, such as an audio alert or a visual alert, to the rider advising the rider to exit the EV 110. In some embodiments, the rider is immediately advised to exit the EV 110 when a potential out-gassing event is identified, even if the cooling system controller 240 may be able to control the out-gassing event to prevent thermal runaway).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the mitigation actions taught in Du to incorporate the teachings of Furguson to include wherein executing the mitigation actions includes reducing a speed of the vehicle and communicating the fault status and mitigation actions includes issuing an alert to stop the vehicle and exit the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved safety by alerting to the user in cases of out-gassing event (Fugurson [0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Du, as modified, teaches the fault mitigation system of Claim 19.
Du also teaches wherein estimating the severity level includes determining the severity level is the second level ([0222] For example, each fault type of the battery may be divided into three fault levels: a fault level 1, a fault level 2, and a fault level 3).
Du does not explicitly teach executing the mitigation actions includes reducing a speed of the vehicle, and communicating the fault status and mitigation actions includes issuing an alert to stop the vehicle and exit the vehicle.
However, Furguson teaches wherein executing the mitigation actions includes reducing a speed of the vehicle ([0044] In response to a thermal runaway or potential thermal runaway, the battery controller 230 can stop or reduce power drawn from the battery 150. The battery controller 230 may instruct the battery 150 to enter a low-power or reduced functionality mode, e.g., a mode that enables the EV 110 to travel at a low speed, or a mode that enables the EV 110 to provide alerts to riders, but not to travel)
and communicating the fault status and mitigation actions includes issuing an alert to stop the vehicle and exit the vehicle ([0049] In response to a signal indicating that the battery 150 is experiencing out-gassing, the risk mitigation controller 250 provides an alert, such as an audio alert or a visual alert, to the rider advising the rider to exit the EV 110. In some embodiments, the rider is immediately advised to exit the EV 110 when a potential out-gassing event is identified, even if the cooling system controller 240 may be able to control the out-gassing event to prevent thermal runaway).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the mitigation actions taught in Du to incorporate the teachings of Furguson to include wherein executing the mitigation actions includes reducing a speed of the vehicle and communicating the fault status and mitigation actions includes issuing an alert to stop the vehicle and exit the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved safety by alerting to the user in cases of out-gassing event (Fugurson [0049]).
Regarding claim 22, Du, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 1.
Du, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein communicating the fault status and the mitigation actions includes issuing an alert to stop the vehicle and exit the vehicle.
However, Furguson teaches wherein communicating the fault status and the mitigation actions includes issuing an alert to stop the vehicle and exit the vehicle ([0044] In response to a thermal runaway or potential thermal runaway, the battery controller 230 can stop or reduce power drawn from the battery 150. The battery controller 230 may instruct the battery 150 to enter a low-power or reduced functionality mode, e.g., a mode that enables the EV 110 to travel at a low speed, or a mode that enables the EV 110 to provide alerts to riders, but not to travel; [0049] In response to a signal indicating that the battery 150 is experiencing out-gassing, the risk mitigation controller 250 provides an alert, such as an audio alert or a visual alert, to the rider advising the rider to exit the EV 110. In some embodiments, the rider is immediately advised to exit the EV 110 when a potential out-gassing event is identified, even if the cooling system controller 240 may be able to control the out-gassing event to prevent thermal runaway).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the mitigation actions taught in Du to incorporate the teachings of Furguson to include wherein executing the mitigation actions includes reducing a speed of the vehicle and communicating the fault status and mitigation actions includes issuing an alert to stop the vehicle and exit the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved safety by alerting to the user in cases of out-gassing event (Fugurson [0049]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, in view of Horita, in view of Chen et al. (CN-117416206-A) and herein after will be referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 23, Du, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 8.
Du does not explicitly teach wherein executing the mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level includes reducing, in response to the second level of the severity level, a speed of the vehicle.
However, Chen teaches wherein executing the mitigation actions based on the estimated severity level includes reducing, in response to the second level of the severity level, a speed of the vehicle ([0110] In some embodiments, after S1062 in Figure 5 above, when the target warning level is a level 2 alarm, the battery thermal runaway warning method further includes the following steps: when the driving speed of the vehicle where the battery to be tested is located is greater than a second preset speed, a first power reduction command is sent to the vehicle's motor controller; [0111] In this embodiment of the application, when a secondary alarm is triggered, if the vehicle speed of the vehicle where the battery to be detected is located is greater than a second preset speed (for example, the vehicle speed is greater than 30km/h), a first power reduction command is sent to the vehicle's motor controller, so that the motor controller performs a power reduction operation based on the first power reduction command. The preset ratio can be set by those skilled in the art according to the actual situation, for example, 0.7, 0.5, 0.4, etc. For example, with a preset ratio of 0.5, the motor controller will reduce the motor output power from the current power to 50%).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify what happens in the second severity level as taught in Du to incorporate the teachings of Chen to include reducing, in response to the second level of the severity level, a speed of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “enrich[ing] the warning methods and enabl[ing] convenient and accurate issuance of corresponding warnings to users based on the severity of thermal runaway, so as to provide timely safety warnings to users and improve the accuracy of warnings and battery safety performance” (Chen [0012]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
It is well-known to give a battery risk level and determine different mitigation plans based on the risk severity – i.e. US-20250021454-A1: Woll teaches depending on the risk value, different interventions in the operation of the vehicle and/or the output of instructions for action can be made.
[0055] If the risk is low, for example at a risk value of less than 100, then a corresponding signaling of an anomaly that has occurred and an indication of a corresponding expected error type can occur first. This can be in conjunction with an instruction for action to go to a workshop as soon as possible.
[0056] For example, at a risk value in a mid-range between 100 and 300, a power limitation of the device battery can occur. For example, the charging and discharging current can be limited in order to avoid excessive loading of the vehicle battery. At the same time, an urgent instruction can be given that the driver should go to a workshop.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights