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 .
In response to amendment filed 09/11/2024, claims 1-9, 11-15 have been amended. Claim 10 has been canceled. No claims are new.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 11 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because claim 11 recites, “the control unit being provided with means for:”
If the means-plus-function interpretation is not intended, applicant should amend the claims to use structural language.
Examiner’s comment regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
It is noted that current independent claims do not invoke 35 USC 101 subject matter patent ineligibility under following reasons:
In claim 1, last portion recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
186
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The additional element, “if SOC/SOH < SOC/SOH1…activating the propulsion battery pack…” is not merely a generic “apply it” command. This limitation describes a specific physical interaction between two distinct battery systems in a vehicle. Also paragraph 9 of applicant’s disclosure recites, “The solution has the advantage that the propulsion battery pack can be used to charge the maintenance battery pack during situations where the vehicle is parked and inactive and is not connected to a stationary charging station. This increases the safety against discharging the maintenance battery pack to such an extent that the vehicle cannot be activated or started. This in turn has the advantage that the size of the maintenance battery pack can be reduced and thereby the weight, allowing the vehicle to carry more goods and load.” Therefore, this step integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “terminating charging…” further integrates judicial exception into a practical application. Paragraph 11 of applicant’s disclosure recites, “As a further measure the condition of the propulsion battery pack during charging of the maintenance battery pack may be checked, and if the condition has reached a predetermined lowest value, charging of the maintenance battery pack is terminated. This measure ascertains that the propulsion battery pack is not discharged too much so that it might jeopardize the propulsion of the vehicle.” The termination step is not merely the simple output of a mathematical comparison, but rather it is a physical safeguard that prevents the propulsion battery from being depleted to a level that would render the vehicle unable to move.
Therefore, these elements are not insignificant post solution activities that merely provides output to the mathematical comparison but are significant activities that improves battery/vehicle safety, efficiency, and/or management.
Similar reasoning applies to rest of the independent claims, which recite substantially the same subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 20170166076 A1) in view of MIYANO RYUICHI (JP 2017073911 A) (Examiner relies on attached Miyano for citation), and further in view of Nishiyama (US 10338147 B2)
In regards to claim 1, Yoon teaches, A method of charging a maintenance battery pack of a vehicle, which vehicle comprises a propulsion battery pack and a maintenance battery pack, said method comprising the steps of, when the vehicle is inactive: (See fig. 1-2, paragraphs 5, 32, 42, 57, a periodic recharging mode in a method for charging the auxiliary/second battery 500 (configured to supply electric power to general electric elements) from the main/first battery 600 (configured to supply drive power to an electric motor to drive wheels) when vehicle is inactive (IG1 in an OFF state))
providing a predetermined first threshold value SOC(See fig. 2, paragraph 61, step 210, SOC of the second battery 500 is determined and if it is less than a threshold the charging is activated) and a predetermined second threshold value SOC(See fig. 2, paragraph 64, step 240, SOC of the second battery 500 is determined and if it is greater than a threshold the charging is completed)
continually measuring battery voltage, battery current, and battery temperature of the maintenance battery pack; calculating, based on the measurements, battery charge level, State Of Charge SOC, (See Fig. 1, paragraph 53, the second battery sensor 300 is an intelligent battery sensor (IBS) and senses voltage, current, temperature, SOC, and SOH)
calculating SOC (See fig. 1, paragraph 3, IBS senses SOC)
comparing the battery charge quota SOC (See fig. 2, paragraph 61, step 210, SOC of the second battery 500 is determined and if it is less than threshold then charging is activated)
checking the condition of the propulsion battery pack, and if condition is satisfactory, (See fig. 2, paragraph 62, step 120, the prohibition condition is checked (SOC of the first battery 600 being less than a predetermined SOC among other possible prohibition condition is disclosed))
activating the propulsion battery pack to charge the maintenance battery, (See fig. 2, paragraph 61, 63, steps 130, 140, and 230, recharging is activated and performed)
comparing the battery charge quota SOC (See fig. 2, paragraph 64, step 240, SOC of the second battery 500 is determined and if it is greater than a threshold the charging is completed)
Yoon discloses the IBS measures SOC and SOH (par 53), however, does not define or calculate SOC and SOH in terms of ampere-hour capacity. In other words Yoon does not disclose, calculating…SOC, as number of ampere hours calculating… SOH, as number of ampere hours
Miyano further discloses, calculating…SOC, as number of ampere hours calculating… SOH, as number of ampere hours (See fig. 5, page 5, determining SOC and SOH as number of ampere hours or “Ah”)
PNG
media_image2.png
282
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Yoon to further comprise method taught by Miyano because expressing SOC and SOH in Ah format is highly advantageous because it directly tracks the actual number of charge carriers flowing in and out of the battery, rather than relying on fluctuating voltage, which is heavily influenced by load and temperature. Usage of Ah allows for high accuracy data.
Yoon-Miyano does not specifically teach utilization of SOC/SOH, as basis for determining battery control action in response to comparison with at least two thresholds.
Nishiyama discloses explicitly discloses calculating a relative state of charge (RSOC), defined as the ratio of the battery’s remaining capacity to its full charge capacity (FCC), where FCC is the maximum capacity of the battery as reduced by aging (See col. 1, lines 21-40, “The remaining capacity may be expressed as a percentage of the full charge capacity (maximum capacity) of the battery. This percentage value is referred to as the relative state of charge (RSOC) of the battery…The full charge capacity of the battery, however, decreases with age”)). This ratio is mathematically identical to the claimed SOC/SOH: the numerator (remaining capacity) corresponds to SOC as claimed, and the denominator (FCC, the health-adjusted maximum capacity) corresponds to SOH as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to apply the RSOC ratio of Nishiyama as the charge metric used in the threshold comparisons of Yoon-Miyano in place of raw SOC alone. The RSOC ratio taught by Nishiyama and the SOC/SOH ratio recited in claim 1 are the same mathematical operation applied to the same battery parameters, and substituting one for the other involves no more than routine application of a well-known normalization technique to achieve the predictable result of a charge level value that accounts for battery aging. See MPEP 2143 (A); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In regards to claim 3, Yoon-Miyano-Nishiyama teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: checking the condition of the propulsion battery pack during charging of the maintenance battery pack, and if condition has reached a predetermined lowest value, terminating charging of the maintenance battery pack. (See Yoon fig. 2, paragraph 62, a number of recharging prohibition conditions checked in step 120 is listed, including SOC of the first battery 600 being less than a predetermined SOC)
In regards to claim 4, Yoon-Miyano-Nishiyama teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, if condition of propulsion battery pack is below a predetermined lowest value, denying charging of the maintenance battery pack. (See Yoon fig. 2, paragraph 62, a number of recharging prohibition conditions checked in step 120 is listed, including SOC of the first battery 600 being less than a predetermined SOC)
In regards to claim 6, Yoon-Miyano-Nishiyama teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the condition of the propulsion battery pack is based on the SOC of the propulsion battery pack. (See Yoon fig. 2, paragraph 62, a number of recharging prohibition conditions checked in step 120 is listed, including SOC of the first battery 600 being less than a predetermined SOC)
In regards to claim 7, Yoon-Miyano-Nishiyama teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein charging is terminated when SOC/SOH>SOC/SOH2Threshold or when a maximum permissible charging time has been reached. (See fig. 2, paragraph 64, step 240, when the SOC of the second battery 500 is greater than the predetermined SOC, or recharging time is greater than a predetermined time, the charging is completed. Also see Nishiyama col. 1, lines 21-40)
In regards to claim 8, Yoon-Miyano-Nishiyama teaches the method according to claim 1, comprising the further steps, when the vehicle is active: providing a predetermined first threshold value SOC/SOH1Threshold as a value when charging is activated and a predetermined second threshold value SOC/SOH2Threshold as a value when charging is terminated; continually measuring battery voltage, battery current and battery temperature of the maintenance battery pack; calculating, based on the measurements, SOC and SOH; calculating SOC/SOH as a value of battery charge quota; comparing the battery charge quota SOC/SOH with the predetermined first threshold SOC/SOH1Threshold value; and if SOC/SOH<SOC/SOH1Threshold, activating a power source of the vehicle to charge the maintenance battery pack;
comparing the battery charge quota SOC/SOH with the predetermined second threshold SOC/SOH2Threshold value; and terminating charging when SOC/SOH≥SOC/SOH2Threshold. (It is noted that present claim adds repeated steps of claim 1, and the only difference is that claim 8 requires vehicle being active and describes a more generic ‘power source’ as a source for recharging the maintenance battery pack. See Yoon fig. 1, 3, paragraphs 52, 65-72, the automatic recharging mode in the auxiliary battery recharging control method is described that is analogous to the periodic recharging mode but performed when the vehicle is active (IG 1 in an On state), the second battery 500 is charged by the first battery 600 via the first controller 200 which is a low voltage DC-DC converter (LDC). Also see rejection of claim 1 set forth above regarding SOC/SOH)
Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 8, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
In regards to claim 13, Yoon-Miyano-Nishiyama teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the control unit comprises a battery data module, a chassis control unit, an electric machine unit (and a propulsion battery handling unit. (See Yoon fig. 1-3, paragraphs 32, 42, the auxiliary battery recharging control apparatus for a vehicle comprising a recharging determiner 100, a first controller 200, a first battery sensor 300 and a second controller 400. Also see Nishiyama fig. 1, Miyano figs. 1-2 and associated paragraphs and pages)
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
In regards to claim 15, Yoon-Miyano-Nishiyama teaches the vehicle according to claim 14, wherein the vehicle is a fully electric propulsion vehicle or an electric and combustion engine propulsion vehicle.(See Yoon paragraphs 3-6)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 20170166076 A1) in view of MIYANO RYUICHI (JP 2017073911 A) (Examiner relies on attached Miyano for citation), in view of Nishiyama (US 10338147 B2), and further in view of Monahan et al. (US 20190263290 A1)
In regards to claim 5, Yoon-Miyano-Nishiyama teaches the method according to claim 4.
Yoon-Miyano-Nishiyama does not specifically teach, further comprising alerting a person handling the vehicle that charging of the maintenance battery pack is denied.
Monahan teaches, further comprising alerting a person handling the vehicle that charging of the maintenance battery pack is denied. (See paragraphs 132-136, 176, when the high voltage battery 14 is drained or below the threshold level and unable to charge the low voltage battery 12 the user is alerted)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Yoon-Miyano-Nishiyama to further comprise method taught by Monahan because efficient communication can be achieved between vehicle and user, so that driver is more aware of the situation of the battery and vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668