DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract
idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for protecting a battery power limit, applied to a vehicle, the vehicle being provided with a battery management system, wherein the method comprises:
acquiring temperature data, a state of charge, and a cell voltage extreme value of a battery, periodically;
calculating a current maximum available power according to the temperature data and the state of charge, wherein the maximum available power comprises a maximum discharging power and a maximum charging power;
determining a power limit coefficient according to the cell voltage extreme value, and a voltage limited power interval corresponding to the temperature data; and
obtaining an actual available power that the battery management system allows the vehicle to use according to the maximum available power and the power limit coefficient.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mathematical relation” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation mathematically. Specifically, the “calculating current maximum available power…” and “determining power limit coefficient…”steps encompasses a pure mathematical steps. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for protecting a battery power limit, applied to a vehicle, the vehicle being provided with a battery management system, wherein the method comprises:
acquiring temperature data, a state of charge, and a cell voltage extreme value of a battery, periodically;
calculating a current maximum available power according to the temperature data and the state of charge, wherein the maximum available power comprises a maximum discharging power and a maximum charging power;
determining a power limit coefficient according to the cell voltage extreme value, and a voltage limited power interval corresponding to the temperature data; and
obtaining an actual available power that the battery management system allows the vehicle to use according to the maximum available power and the power limit coefficient.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “battery management system”, “vehicle”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the additional elements such as battery management system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating and determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The battery management system and vehicle are claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
The acquiring and obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle condition data for use in the calculating and determining steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “vehicle” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of battery management system amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim].
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN110224461A) in view of Hong (CN 108072844 B).
Regarding claim 1, Yan discloses a method for protecting a battery power limit (abstract, “battery power limit method”), applied to a vehicle (page 2, lines 35-36, “battery… cell system .. electric vehicle”), the vehicle being provided with a battery management system (page 07, lines 10, “battery management system”), wherein the method comprises:
acquiring temperature data, a state of charge, and a cell voltage extreme value of a battery (), periodically (page 03, line 3-4, “Obtaining … a plurality of feedback power impact factor real-time values, page 03, lines 19-23, “the plurality of feedback power impact factors include battery temperature, battery cell voltage, battery state of charge”);
calculating a current maximum available power according to the temperature data and the state of charge (page 14, lines 12-13, “searching for the maximum discharge power corresponding to the real-time temperature and the real-time state of charge”), wherein the maximum available power comprises a maximum discharging power and a maximum charging power (page 02, lines 1-5, ;
determining a power limit coefficient according to the cell voltage extreme value, and a voltage limited power interval corresponding to the temperature data (page 11, lines 16-19, “relationship between the temperature-reward limit coefficient and the temperature-discharge limit coefficient, when the temperature is ≥50° C., the corresponding feedback power limit coefficient Ltemp1 is 0.9, and the discharge power limit coefficient Ltemp2 is 0.9; according to the state of charge”); and
obtaining an actual available power that the battery management system allows the vehicle to use according to the maximum available power and the power limit coefficient (page 08, lines 13-21, “obtaining a plurality of real-time discharge limiting coefficients corresponding to a plurality of real-time values of the discharge power influence factor; obtaining a current allowable discharge power of the battery according to the maximum discharge power and the plurality of real-time discharge limit coefficients, … the battery management system 102 power limits the battery based on the current allowable feedback power and the current allowable discharge power.”)
Yan does not explicitly disclose but, Hong teaches acquiring temperature data, a state of charge, and a cell voltage extreme value of a battery periodically (page 08, lines 12-16, “acquiring data may be specifically as follows: power battery to obtain a plurality of preset charge state of continuously discharging a first preset time period under a plurality of preset temperature, battery cell voltage reaches the discharge power corresponding to the discharging stop voltage as available power. wherein, the first predetermined time period can be 10-30s,”); wherein the maximum available power comprises a maximum discharging power and a maximum charging power (page 09, lines 1-13, “power battery to obtain multiple preset state of charge under a plurality of preset temperature for charging the second preset time period, battery monomer voltage reaches the charging power corresponding to the charge cut-off voltage as available power… the power battery charge state of each preset in multiple preset temperature for charging the second preset period of time, discharging power of battery monomer voltage reaches the charging cut-off voltage when the corresponding as the available power”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery management system disclosed in Yan with the acquiring the data periodically taught in Hong with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in the energy utilization of the battery without causing the battery to be overcharged or over-discharged.
Regarding claim 3, Yan discloses wherein the battery power limit comprises a discharging power limit and a charging power limit, in the discharging power limit, the power limit coefficient is a first power limit coefficient, the cell voltage extreme value is a minimum cell voltage, the voltage limited power interval comprises a discharging power limit starting voltage, a discharging power limit cut-off voltage and a discharging power limit recovery voltage; and the determining a power limit coefficient according to the cell voltage extreme value, and a voltage limited power interval corresponding to the temperature data comprises: determining the first power limit coefficient by comparing the minimum cell voltage with the discharging power limit starting voltage, the discharging power limit cut-off voltage and the discharging power limit recovery voltage, respectively (page 03, lines 28-32, page 03, lines 38-39, page 04, lines 1-7).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Claims 2, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN110224461A) in view of Hong (CN 108072844 B) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sun (CN 110816287 A).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 18, Yan does not explicitly disclose but, Sun teaches wherein a calculation formula for obtaining an actual available power that the battery management system allows the vehicle to use according to the maximum available power and the power limit coefficient is as follows:P= PowerMax XLimitRate, wherein P denotes the actual available power, PowerMax denotes the maximum available power, and LimitRate denotes the power limit coefficient (page 07, lines 14-16, “the MCU maximum allowable discharge power multiplied by the MCU of the rated motor system efficiency to obtain the motor maximum allowable output power”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery management system disclosed in Yan with the maximum available power taught in Sun with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted ensuring under different battery voltage an optimal power performance of the vehicle, avoiding inaccurate system efficiency calculation, and prolonging the service life of the battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 12-17, 19-20 are 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.
EXAMINER’S STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 4-8, 12-17, 19-20 are allowable for the following reasons:
Chinese reference (CN110224461A) discloses a battery power limiting method and device, wherein the real-time running state of the battery is acquired; when the real-time running state is a feedback state, according to the relation of different feedback power influence factors and feedback limiting coefficients, a plurality of real-time feedback limiting coefficients corresponding to the feedback power influence factor real-time values are obtained; according to the maximum feedback power and a plurality of real-time feedback limiting coefficients, the current allowable feedback power is obtained, and power limitation is carried out on the battery by using the current allowable feedback power. Furthermore, Chinese reference (CN 108072844 B) teaches a vehicle power battery available power estimation method, obtaining data, obtaining the actual state of charge of the power battery, and collecting the actual charge state of the power battery of a maximum temperature and a minimum temperature…the available power basic value and the dynamic correction factor f obtained by multiplying power battery available power of relatively small absolute value in the first available power and the second usable power. However, none of the documents discloses the feature of “wherein the determining the first power limit coefficient by comparing the minimum cell voltage with the discharging power limit starting voltage, the discharging power limit cut-off voltage and the discharging power limit recovery voltage respectively comprises: acquiring an initial discharging power limit coefficient; in response to the minimum cell voltage being not less than the discharging power limit starting voltage, determining the first power limit coefficient to be the initial discharging power limit coefficient; in response to the minimum cell voltage being not greater than the discharging power limit cut-off voltage, determining the first power limit coefficient to be zero; in response to the minimum cell voltage being between the discharging power limit starting voltage and the discharging power limit cut-off voltage, calculating and obtaining the first power limit coefficient according to a first voltage power limit coefficient formula; and in response to the minimum cell voltage being greater than the discharging power limit recovery voltage, determining the first power limit coefficient to be the initial discharging power limit coefficient”, or “wherein the first voltage power limit coefficient formula is as follows: wherein LimitRate1 denotes the first power limit coefficient, Vltg Min denotes the minimum cell voltage, V1 denotes the discharging power limit starting voltage, V2 denotes the discharging power limit cut-off voltage, and LimitRate3 denotes the initial discharging power limit coefficient” of the invention as set forth in claims 1-20. Meanwhile, as a result of these features, the invention as set forth in claims 1-20 produces the advantageous effect of "protecting the battery power limit and storage medium."
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee, such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang (US 20220283236 A1) discloses A method for estimating a power limit of a battery pack is disclosed, including: obtaining an actual minimum cell voltage of an electrical core with a minimum voltage in the battery pack; obtaining a static discharge power limit of the battery pack; calculating, based on the actual minimum cell voltage, an estimated discharge voltage of the electrical core with the minimum voltage for use when the battery pack is discharged based on the static discharge power limit; determining whether the estimated discharge voltage falls between a discharge voltage control threshold of the electrical core with the minimum voltage and an undervoltage threshold of the electrical core with the minimum voltage; and determining a target discharge power limit of the battery pack through a discharge interpolation algorithm when the estimated discharge voltage falls between the discharge voltage control threshold and the undervoltage threshold (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664