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 Amendments
The amendment and response filed on March 17, 2026, to the Non-Final Office Action dated December 17, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 12 are amended; Claims 2 & 13 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 8-14, filed March 17, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection have been considered and are non-persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 (now claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20) is maintained for the reasons explained below.
Applicant primarily asserts two arguments (i) the claim contains linking it a particular technological environment; and (ii) there is integration of the abstract subject matter because it improves a technical field, i.e., the functioning of a computer.
As to the first argument, the examiner disagrees that merely including a generic “processor” as the means for performing data gathering and calculation is sufficient to cause a claim to be statutory. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer."). Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.
As to the second argument, the claims are drawn to improving a predictive model as to the state of charge of batteries. A model or improvement of a model is generally not within the protected class of invention. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978); and Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 23-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025).
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 8-14, filed March 17, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection based on Khalid et al (US-20240319282-A1) and Sakai et al (US-20020113595- A1) have been considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of further limiting amendments made, changing the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim rejections—35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to independent claims 1 and 12 the claims recite new matter. The claim limitations at issue are provided below with corresponding analysis:
compare the first result with the second result to determine whether the first result and the second result indicate a same direction of change of the voltage parameter; and
correct at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC based on determining that the first result and the second result indicate different directions of change.
o There is no disclosure in the originally-filed specification of the newly added term “a same direction of change of the voltage parameter” is not defined or found in the specification. At most, the specification disclose “increases or decreases” relative to a voltage value. (See at least PGPUB, US-20250321280-A1, at ¶ 14.)
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for controlling a vehicle (i.e., a machine). 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, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A vehicle control apparatus, comprising:
a memory storing a program instruction; and
a processor configured to execute the program instruction, wherein the processor is configured to:
identify information of a battery of a vehicle, the information including at least one of a charge current of the battery, a discharge current of the battery, a charge voltage of the battery, a discharge voltage of the battery, or a temperature of the battery;
estimate a first state of charge (SOC) of the battery at a first time point and a second SOC of the battery at a second time point when a certain time elapses from the first time point, based on the information of the battery [mental process/step];
calculate a voltage parameter and an SOC of the battery, the voltage parameter and the SOC being calculated according to a hysteresis characteristic of a charge voltage and a discharge voltage, so as to determine a profile of the battery [mental process/step];
identify a first voltage parameter, based on the profile and the first SOC [mental process/step since at Figure 5, S534, is selection of a value from a profile/table.];
identify a second voltage parameter, based on the profile and the second SOC [mental process/step since at Figure 5, S531, is selection of a value from a profile/table.];
determine a first result for whether the first voltage parameter increases or decreases to the second voltage parameter [mental process/step];
calculate a third voltage parameter according to the hysteresis characteristic of the battery, using the charge voltage at the first time point and the discharge voltage at the first time point [mental process/step];
calculate a fourth voltage parameter according to the hysteresis characteristic of the battery, using the charge voltage at the second time point and the discharge voltage at the second time point [mental process/step];
determine a second result for whether the third voltage parameter increases or decreases to the fourth voltage parameter [mental process/step]; and
compare the first result with the second result [mental process/step] and correct at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC.
compare the first result with the second result to determine whether the first result and the second result indicate a same direction of change of the voltage parameter [mental process/step]; and
correct at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC based on determining that the first result and the second result indicate different directions of change [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “calculate a [third or fourth]…”, “calculate a voltage parameter and an SOC of the battery …” , and “identify a [first/second] voltage parameters …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement as to the state of charge (SOC) of a battery so as to presumable gauge the range of a vehicle. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
1. A vehicle control apparatus, comprising:
a memory storing a program instruction ; and
a processor configured to execute the program instruction [insignificant extra-solution activities using memory/processor combination to perform the steps], wherein the processor is configured to:
identify information of a battery of a vehicle, the information including at least one of a charge current of the battery, a discharge current of the battery, a charge voltage of the battery, a discharge voltage of the battery, or a temperature of the battery [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
estimate a first state of charge (SOC) of the battery at a first time point and a second SOC of the battery at a second time point when a certain time elapses from the first time point, based on the information of the battery;
calculate a voltage parameter and an SOC of the battery, the voltage parameter and the SOC being calculated according to a hysteresis characteristic of a charge voltage and a discharge voltage, so as to determine a profile of the battery;
identify a first voltage parameter, based on the profile and the first SOC;
identify a second voltage parameter, based on the profile and the second SOC;
determine a first result for whether the first voltage parameter increases or decreases to the second voltage parameter;
calculate a third voltage parameter according to the hysteresis characteristic of the battery, using the charge voltage at the first time point and the discharge voltage at the first time point;
calculate a fourth voltage parameter according to the hysteresis characteristic of the battery, using the charge voltage at the second time point and the discharge voltage at the second time point;
determine a second result for whether the third voltage parameter increases or decreases to the fourth voltage parameter; and
compare the first result with the second result and
correct at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC [post-solution insignificant activity].
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 “identify information of a battery of a vehicle …,” “correct at least one of …,” and using memory and processor to “execute the program instruction …,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (electronic/vehicle controller/memory/processor) to perform the process. In particular, the collecting and inputting steps from the sensors and from an input source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering battery condition data for use in the comparing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “memory”, “processor”, or “controller” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. see 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 using a memory and processor combination to perform the calculating, comparing, and the like … 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. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of collecting, calculating, comparing, and the updating of first or second SOC model, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites an apparatus including a step for correcting a first or second SOC based on a the mental step of determining a similarity between two quantities thus failing to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites an apparatus including a step for correcting a first or second SOC based on a the mental step of identifying a point where the change in a voltage parameter is zero from a profile of the battery.
Claim 5 recites an apparatus including a step for correcting a first or second SOC based on a the mental step of determining a point where the change is zero.
Claim 6 recites an apparatus including a step for correcting a first or second SOC based on a the mental step of determining a point where the change is zero which fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites an apparatus including a step for updating a change rate of the voltage parameter based on a the mental step of determining a point where the change is zero which fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites an apparatus including a step for identifying an open voltage which is a data gathering step necessary for the abstract idea and which fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites an apparatus including a step for performing the abstract idea while in a vehicle fails to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites an apparatus including a step for performing a step of storing numerical values in a table to be later used in the abstract idea fails to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites an apparatus including a step for performing a step of displaying a numerical result to a user of the abstract idea fails to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites the same limitations as claim 1, these claims are likewise rejected as being directed to an abstract idea. While each of these limitations, as drafted, are a simple process/acts that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of by “a processor” and by “storage device”. That is, other than reciting “by a unit” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor/controller or the like does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claims 14-20 recite the same limitations as claims 2-11, these claims are likewise rejected as being directed to an abstract idea. While claims 13-20 recites such limitations as a memory module or an external memory such as a server these are generic components of a vehicle control unit and does not interact with the abstract idea so does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, since independent claims 1 and 12 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that the independent claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
As for dependent claims 3-11 and 14-20 these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid et al (US-20240319282-A1)(“Khalid”), Sakai et al (US-20020113595- A1)(“Sakai”), and DU et al (US-20200400750-A1)(“Du”).
As per claim 1, Khalid discloses a vehicle control apparatus (Figure 10), comprising:
a memory storing a program instruction (Khalid at Para. [0048] discloses a ” a non-transient computer readable memory”.); and
a processor configured to execute the program instruction, wherein the processor is configured (Khalid at Para. [0048] discloses a processor:” system 200 may include a processor and a non-transient computer readable memory in electrical communication with the controller, sensors, and other systems to store and execute operating instructions, reference data, collected data, computational results, and the like.”)to:
identify information of a battery of a vehicle based on measurements obtained via at least one sensor, the information including at least one of a charge current of the battery, a discharge current of the battery, a charge voltage of the battery, a discharge voltage of the battery, or a temperature of the battery (Khalid at Para. [0041] discloses initialing measuring battery parameters:” measuring step 102 may include measuring electrical parameters of the battery or battery pack, or of each of a plurality of battery cells of the battery pack. The electrical parameters may include one or more of an open circuit voltage, an ohmic resistance, a resistor-capacitor (RC) pair resistance, a RC pair capacitance, a voltage across a RC pair, a terminal voltage, and a fuel cell output current.”);
estimate a first state of charge (SOC) of the battery at a first time point and a second SOC of the battery at a second time point when a certain time elapses from the first time point, based on the information of the battery (Khalid at Figure 1, estimation 30 and repeated loop from process 48, and Para. [0040] discloses estimation of the state of charge further note that this process is repeated at different time slices as evidenced from return loop from process 48:” estimation stage 30 may include steps generally referenced as a state prediction step 32 where estimated SOC of the battery may be calculated, and an error covariance prediction step 34 where an uncertainty of the estimated SOC may be modeled.”);
calculate a voltage parameter and an SOC of the battery (Khalid at Para. [0040] discloses calculating parameters and SOC for the battery:” measuring battery parameters 20 and an estimation stage 30 and a correction stage 40. The estimation stage 30 may include steps generally referenced as a state prediction step 32 where estimated SOC of the battery may be calculated”.), the voltage parameter and the SOC being calculated according to a hysteresis characteristic of a charge voltage and a discharge voltage, so as to determine a profile of the battery (Khalid at Para. [0046] discloses the mapping of voltage to an electromotive force (EMF) “mapping the open circuit voltage incorporating EMF data” and in Para. [0062] disclosing that the mapping is done using a hysteresis model:” EMF Mapping step, SOC.sub.k+1|k from the state prediction step is mapped to OCV recursively for every EMF-SOC value. The EMF values are obtained from a combination of major and minor hysteresis models”. );
identify a first voltage parameter, based on the profile and the first SOC (Khalid at Para. [0041] discloses identifying/measuring at least a voltage parameter:” measuring step 102 may include measuring electrical parameters of the battery or battery pack, or of each of a plurality of battery cells of the battery pack.”);
identify a second voltage parameter, based on the profile and the second SOC (Khalid at Figure 4, identifying elbow regions using changes in OCV at different SOC, and Para. [0040] discloses an on observation matrix of open current voltage (OCV) to SOC:” observation matrix 42 may include where the SOC may be mapped to the measured values OCV-SOC”.);
;
calculate a third voltage parameter according to the hysteresis characteristic of the battery, using the charge voltage at the first time point and the discharge voltage at the first time point (Khalid a Para. [0062] discloses calculating OCV from equations 5 & 6 at different time intervals (Δt) with an hysteresis model:” resulting EMF characteristic is then interpolated to OCV based on the formulation shown in Eq. 6.”);
calculate a fourth voltage parameter according to the hysteresis characteristic of the battery, using the charge voltage at the second time point and the discharge voltage at the second time point (Khalid a Para. [0062] discloses calculating OCV from equations 5 & 6 at different time intervals (Δt) with an hysteresis model which is recursively updated:” resulting EMF characteristic is then interpolated to OCV based on the formulation shown in Eq. 6.”) ;
; and
compare the first result with the second result (Khalid at Para. [0072] discloses comparing the outputs with the model:” graphic outputs from the models and compare the accumulated error profile of the True SOC method to the improved AEKF estimated SOC”.) and correct at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC (Khalid at Figure 13, regions 14A and 14B, and Para. [0073] discloses correction of the determined SOC:” After a learning delay, the AEKF corrects (and reduces error) the SOC values at the second elbow region, as shown in FIGS. 14A and 14B.”).
While Khalid analyses the change in OCV at the identified knee regions so that “the SOC may be mapped to the measured values OCV-SOC slope”; Khalid , however, does not explicitly disclose a process to determine a first result for whether the first voltage parameter increases or decreases to the second voltage parameter and another process to determine a second result for whether the third voltage parameter increases or decreases to the fourth voltage parameter.
Sakai in the same field of endeavor discloses a method and system for eliminating a cumulative error in calculating the state-of-charge of the battery caused by a variation in charge/discharge efficiency of the battery. See Abstract and Figures 4-8.
In particular, Sakai discloses a process to determine a first result for whether the first voltage parameter increases or decreases to the second voltage parameter (Sakai at Para. [0010] discloses determining if the voltage increase or decreases relative to a reference voltage:” when the open-circuit voltage is greater than the reference voltage and decreases the state-of-charge when the open-circuit voltage is smaller than the reference voltage”.).
Further, Sakai discloses a process to determine a second result for whether the third voltage parameter increases or decreases to the fourth voltage parameter (Sakai at Para. [0055] discloses recalculating for another set of voltages to determine if the parameter is increasing or decreasing:” after a given number of pairs of the module voltage VB and the charging/discharging current IB for a preselected period of time have been obtained, and a maximum-to-minimum current difference has reached a preselected value, the internal resistance Rk' is calculated using the least squares method.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the charging and discharging method taught in Sakai in the adaptive state of charge correction for electric vehicle in Khalid with a reasonable expectation of success because this results in the battery being utilized as uniformly as possible over time which increases the lifetime of the battery and to account for the change in charging/discharging efficiency arising from the history of use of the battery (see Sakai at Para. [0005]).
compare the first result with the second result to determine whether the first result and the second result indicate a same (Khalid at Para. [0072] discloses comparing the outputs with the model:” graphic outputs from the models and compare the accumulated error profile of the True SOC method to the improved AEKF estimated SOC”.); and
correct at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC based on determining that the first result and the second result indicate (Sakai at Para. [0055] discloses correcting the SOC when the differences are within a certain range from each other:” the SOC derived in step 403 is corrected in a manner, as discussed below, based on a difference between the open-circuit voltage Vo derived in step 402 and a reference voltage V60 that corresponds to a given reference SOC (e.g., an open-circuit voltage when an actual SOC of the battery unit 405 is 60%) within the range of 57% to 63% predetermined in view of the so-called charge-caused polarization in which the open-circuit voltage Vo drops due to continuation of charge.”).
Khalid and Sakai do not disclose, but Du discloses a process for ascertaining a direction of change of the voltage parameter (Du at Figure 1, coincidence points of hysteresis voltage interval and a non-hysteresis voltage interval, and Figure 2, correction method, and Para. [0067] a threshold interval which the examiner using the broadest reasonable interpretation as being the same as the claimed direction of change is used to apply a correction of the voltage parameter:” step S130 may include step S132 where an SOC correction variation for each correction is determined based on the SOC confidence interval and a preset error-range-equal-division parameter, when an absolute value of a voltage difference between the current estimated OCV value and the current OCV measurement value is greater than or equal to a voltage difference threshold.”).
Du is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which provides SOC correction for a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khalid and Sakai further in view of Du to allow for finding a process to apply correction based on the direction of change between a predictive and a measured parameter for a battery. Motivation to do so would allow for reducing negative effects of not knowing the state or capacity of a vehicle battery which can impact power indication, remaining mileage, over-charge and over-discharge protection, battery balance, charge control and battery health prediction by the battery management system. (Du at Para. [0003]).
As per claim 3, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
correct the at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC, upon determining that the first result and the second result are the same as each other (Sakai at Para. [0008] disclosing that comparison is within a certain narrow range which under broadest reasonable interpretation would include same or equal in magnitude:” comparing the open-circuit voltage with a reference voltage which corresponds to a reference state-of-charge predetermined in a state-of-charge correction range defined around a target state-of-charge of the storage battery”.).
As per claim 4, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the profile includes information in which the SOC and the voltage parameter match with each other (Sakai at Para. [0056] disclosing profile information where there is a parity with the voltage parameter: ”open-circuit voltage Vo is identical with the reference voltage V60, thereby minimizing an error in integrating the charging/discharging current TB arising from an error of an output of the current detector 204 and/or a variation in efficiency at which the battery unit 405 is charged or discharged.”), and wherein the processor is configured to:
identify a point at which a change rate of the voltage parameter according to the SOC is 0, based on the information in which the SOC and the voltage parameter match with each other (Khalid at Para. [0059] discloses identifying the where the voltage and SOC match which is identified as an elbow region:” confidence slope shown in FIG. 6 allows identification of the elbow regions and is obtained by identifying values from the original OCV-SOC values shown in FIG. 4, as shown below in Eq. 3.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the charging and discharging method taught in Sakai in the adaptive state of charge correction for electric vehicle in Khalid with a reasonable expectation of success because this results in the battery being utilized as uniformly as possible over time which increases the lifetime of the battery and to account for the change in charging/discharging efficiency arising from the history of use of the battery (see Sakai at Para. [0005]).
As per claim 5, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to:
identify at least one third SOC corresponding to the point at which the change rate of the voltage parameter according to the SOC is 0 among a plurality of SOCs included in the profile (Khalid at Figure 4 and Para. [0059] disclosing a third SOC region that identifies a knee point where the SOC is 9 corresponding to a slope where the change is minimal:” confidence slope shown in FIG. 6 allows identification of the elbow regions and is obtained by identifying values from the original OCV-SOC values shown in FIG. 4,”); and
determine the first result, based on that the third SOC is not included between the first SOC and the second SOC (Khalid at Para. [0079] discloses adaptively correcting measurement of voltage parameters on the corrected SOC:” adaptively corrects the SOC based on an elbow event in the OCV-SOC profile, becomes C-rate independent.”).
As per claim 6, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: update the profile based on the information of the battery (Khalid at Para. [0077] discloses updating the profile based on correction to the SOC:” Current profile B (shown in Case 2-FIG. 16) applied under initial SOC mismatch scenario to evaluate the correction capability of the AEKF estimated SOC when the model is provided with incorrect initial SOC value. The AEKF appears to correct the SOC values after crossing elbow regions multiple times (with delay), as may be seen in FIG. 19.”).
As per claim 7, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control apparatus of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to: update a point at which a change rate of the voltage parameter according to the SOC is 0 among points included in the profile, based on the information of the battery (Khalid at Para. [0009] discloses that the point where the rate of change is zero called the slope confidence:” the measurement update step may include correcting the first state of charge utilizing the battery parameter, the Kalman gain of the error covariance prediction for the first state of charge of the battery, and the mapping the open circuit voltage to the first state of charge to provide the estimated present state of charge.”).
As per claim 8, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: identify the charge voltage or the discharge voltage, based on an open circuit voltage (OCV) (Khalid at Figure 4, OCV and SOC relationship, and equation 6 at Para. [0062] algebraically showing OCV as a function of charge and discharge cycles and in Para. [0042] disclosing that the voltage parameter is measure during the charging cycle:” controller 230 may further be configured to perform a correction stage including an observation matrix update step including mapping an open circuit voltage of the battery to the initial state of charge of the battery to obtain an open circuit voltage-initial state of charge confidence slope”.) .
As per claim 9, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle comprising the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1 (Khalid discloses that the apparatus is useful in an electric vehicle in at least the title.).
As per claim 10, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: store the profile in at least one of the memory, a storage device of the vehicle, the storage device being different from the memory, or an external server (Khalid at Para. [0048] discloses that a storage medium stores operational data which under broadest reasonable interpretation would include the operational data for the battery:” non-transient computer readable memory in electrical communication with the controller, sensors, and other systems to store […] reference data, collected data”).
As per claim 11, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: provide a user with information about at least one of the corrected first SOC or the corrected second SOC, by at least one of a display of the vehicle or an audio of the vehicle (Khalid at discloses at least in Claim 11 that the apparatus “provide an estimated present state of charge” of the battery in a vehicle which known that such vehicle display the range of travel of the vehicle on the basis of the charge in the battery.).
As per claim 12, Khalid discloses a vehicle control method (See at least Figure 11), comprising:
identifying, by a processor, information of a battery of a vehicle, the information including at least one of a charge current of the battery, a discharge current of the battery, a charge voltage of the battery, a discharge voltage of the battery, or a temperature of the battery (Khalid at Para. [0041] discloses initialing measuring battery parameters:” measuring step 102 may include measuring electrical parameters of the battery or battery pack, or of each of a plurality of battery cells of the battery pack. The electrical parameters may include one or more of an open circuit voltage, an ohmic resistance, a resistor-capacitor (RC) pair resistance, a RC pair capacitance, a voltage across a RC pair, a terminal voltage, and a fuel cell output current.”);
estimating, by the processor, a first state of charge (SOC) of the battery at a first time point and a second SOC of the battery at a second time point when a certain time elapses from the first time point, based on the information of the battery (Khalid at Figure 1, estimation 30 and repeated loop from process 48, and Para. [0040] discloses estimation of the state of charge further note that this process is repeated at different time slices as evidenced from return loop from process 48:” estimation stage 30 may include steps generally referenced as a state prediction step 32 where estimated SOC of the battery may be calculated, and an error covariance prediction step 34 where an uncertainty of the estimated SOC may be modeled.”);
calculating, by the processor, a voltage parameter and an SOC of the battery, the voltage parameter and the SOC being calculated according to a hysteresis characteristic of a charge voltage and a discharge voltage, so as to determine a profile of the battery (Khalid at Para. [0040] through Para. [0046] discloses the mapping of voltage to an electromotive force (EMF) “mapping the open circuit voltage incorporating EMF data” and in Para. [0062] disclosing that the mapping is done using a hysteresis model:” EMF Mapping step, SOC.sub.k+1|k from the state prediction step is mapped to OCV recursively for every EMF-SOC value. The EMF values are obtained from a combination of major and minor hysteresis models”. );
identifying, by the processor, a first voltage parameter, based on the profile and the first SOC (Khalid at Para. [0041] discloses identifying/measuring at least a voltage parameter:” measuring step 102 may include measuring electrical parameters of the battery or battery pack, or of each of a plurality of battery cells of the battery pack.”);
identifying, by the processor, a second voltage parameter, based on the profile and the second SOC (Khalid at Figure 4, identifying elbow regions using changes in OCV at different SOC, and Para. [0040] discloses an on observation matrix of open current voltage (OCV) to SOC:” observation matrix 42 may include where the SOC may be mapped to the measured values OCV-SOC”.);
;
calculating, by the processor, a third voltage parameter according to the hysteresis characteristic of the battery, using the charge voltage at the first time point and the discharge voltage at the first time point (Khalid a Para. [0062] discloses calculating OCV from equations 5 & 6 at different time intervals (Δt) with an hysteresis model:” resulting EMF characteristic is then interpolated to OCV based on the formulation shown in Eq. 6.”);
calculating, by the processor, a fourth voltage parameter according to the hysteresis characteristic of the battery, using the charge voltage at the second time point and the discharge voltage at the second time point (Khalid a Para. [0062] discloses calculating OCV from equations 5 & 6 at different time intervals (Δt) with an hysteresis model which is recursively updated:” resulting EMF characteristic is then interpolated to OCV based on the formulation shown in Eq. 6.”);
;
comparing, by the processor, the first result with the second result (Khalid at Para. [0072] discloses comparing the outputs with the model:” graphic outputs from the models and compare the accumulated error profile of the True SOC method to the improved AEKF estimated SOC”.) and correcting, by the processor, at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC (Khalid at Figure 13, regions 14A and 14B, and Para. [0073] discloses correction of the determined SOC:” After a learning delay, the AEKF corrects (and reduces error) the SOC values at the second elbow region, as shown in FIGS. 14A and 14B.”).
While Khalid analyses the change in OCV at the identified knee regions so that “the SOC may be mapped to the measured values OCV-SOC slope”; Khalid , however, does not explicitly disclose a process to determining a first result for whether the first voltage parameter increases or decreases to the second voltage parameter and another process to determining a second result for whether the third voltage parameter increases or decreases to the fourth voltage parameter.
Sakai in the same field of endeavor discloses a method and system for eliminating a cumulative error in calculating the state-of-charge of the battery caused by a variation in charge/discharge efficiency of the battery. See Abstract and Figures 4-8.
In particular, Sakai discloses a process to determining a first result for whether the first voltage parameter increases or decreases to the second voltage parameter (Sakai at Para. [0010] discloses determining if the voltage increase or decreases relative to a reference voltage:” when the open-circuit voltage is greater than the reference voltage and decreases the state-of-charge when the open-circuit voltage is smaller than the reference voltage”.).
Further, Sakai discloses a process to determining a second result for whether the third voltage parameter increases or decreases to the fourth voltage parameter (Sakai at Para. [0055] discloses recalculating for another set of voltages to determine if the parameter is increasing or decreasing:” after a given number of pairs of the module voltage VB and the charging/discharging current IB for a preselected period of time have been obtained, and a maximum-to-minimum current difference has reached a preselected value, the internal resistance Rk' is calculated using the least squares method.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the charging and discharging method taught in Sakai in the adaptive state of charge correction for electric vehicle in Khalid with a reasonable expectation of success because this results in the battery being utilized as uniformly as possible over time which increases the lifetime of the battery and to account for the change in charging/discharging efficiency arising from the history of use of the battery (see Sakai at Para. [0005]).
comparing the first result with the second result to determine whether the first result and the second result indicate a same (Khalid at Para. [0072] discloses comparing the outputs with the model:” graphic outputs from the models and compare the accumulated error profile of the True SOC method to the improved AEKF estimated SOC”.); and
correcting at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC based on determining that the first result and the second result indicate (Sakai at Para. [0055] discloses correcting the SOC when the differences are within a certain range from each other:” the SOC derived in step 403 is corrected in a manner, as discussed below, based on a difference between the open-circuit voltage Vo derived in step 402 and a reference voltage V60 that corresponds to a given reference SOC (e.g., an open-circuit voltage when an actual SOC of the battery unit 405 is 60%) within the range of 57% to 63% predetermined in view of the so-called charge-caused polarization in which the open-circuit voltage Vo drops due to continuation of charge.”).
Khalid and Sakai do not disclose, but Du discloses a process for ascertaining a direction of change of the voltage parameter (Du at Figure 1, coincidence points of hysteresis voltage interval and a non-hysteresis voltage interval, and Figure 2, correction method, and Para. [0067] a threshold interval which the examiner using the broadest reasonable interpretation as being the same as the claimed direction of change is used to apply a correction of the voltage parameter:” step S130 may include step S132 where an SOC correction variation for each correction is determined based on the SOC confidence interval and a preset error-range-equal-division parameter, when an absolute value of a voltage difference between the current estimated OCV value and the current OCV measurement value is greater than or equal to a voltage difference threshold.”).
Du is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which provides SOC correction for a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khalid and Sakai further in view of Du to allow for finding a process to apply correction based on the direction of change between a predictive and a measured parameter for a battery. Motivation to do so would allow for reducing negative effects of not knowing the state or capacity of a vehicle battery which can impact power indication, remaining mileage, over-charge and over-discharge protection, battery balance, charge control and battery health prediction by the battery management system. (Du at Para. [0003]).
As per claim 14, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control method of claim 12, wherein the comparing of the first result with the second result by the processor and the correcting of the at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC, or the any combination thereof by the processor (Khalid at Para. [0072] discloses comparing the outputs with the model:” graphic outputs from the models and compare the accumulated error profile of the True SOC method to the improved AEKF estimated SOC”.) includes:
correcting, by the processor, the at least one of the first SOC or the second SOC, or the any combination thereof to be determined that the first result and the second result are the same as each other (Sakai at Para. [0008] disclosing that comparison is within a certain narrow range which under broadest reasonable interpretation would include same or equal in magnitude:” comparing the open-circuit voltage with a reference voltage which corresponds to a reference state-of-charge predetermined in a state-of-charge correction range defined around a target state-of-charge of the storage battery”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the charging and discharging method taught in Sakai in the adaptive state of charge correction for electric vehicle in Khalid with a reasonable expectation of success because this results in the battery being utilized as uniformly as possible over time which increases the lifetime of the battery and to account for the change in charging/discharging efficiency arising from the history of use of the battery (see Sakai at Para. [0005]).
As per claim 15, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control method of claim 12, wherein the determining of the first result for whether the first voltage parameter increases or decreases to the second voltage parameter by the processor includes:
identifying, by the processor, a point at which a change rate of the voltage parameter according to the SOC is 0, based on information in which the SOC and the voltage parameter match with each other, the information being included in the profile (Khalid at Para. [0059] discloses identifying the where the voltage and SOC match which is identified as an elbow region:” confidence slope shown in FIG. 6 allows identification of the elbow regions and is obtained by identifying values from the original OCV-SOC values shown in FIG. 4, as shown below in Eq. 3.”).
As per claim 16, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control method of claim 15, wherein the determining of the first result for whether the first voltage parameter increases or decreases to the second voltage parameter by the processor includes:
identifying, by the processor, at least one third SOC corresponding to the point at which the change rate of the voltage parameter according to the SOC is 0 among a plurality of SOCs included in the profile (Khalid at Figure 4 and Para. [0059] disclosing a third SOC region that identifies a knee point where the SOC is 9 corresponding to a slope where the change is minimal:” confidence slope shown in FIG. 6 allows identification of the elbow regions and is obtained by identifying values from the original OCV-SOC values shown in FIG. 4,”); and
determining, by the processor, the first result, based on that the third SOC is not included between the first SOC and the second SOC (Khalid at Para. [0079] discloses adaptively correcting measurement of voltage parameters on the corrected SOC:” adaptively corrects the SOC based on an elbow event in the OCV-SOC profile, becomes C-rate independent.”).
As per claim 17, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control method of claim 12, further comprising: updating, by the processor, the profile based on the information of the battery (Khalid at Para. [0077] discloses updating the profile based on correction to the SOC:” Current profile B (shown in Case 2-FIG. 16) applied under initial SOC mismatch scenario to evaluate the correction capability of the AEKF estimated SOC when the model is provided with incorrect initial SOC value. The AEKF appears to correct the SOC values after crossing elbow regions multiple times (with delay), as may be seen in FIG. 19.”).
As per claim 18, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control method of claim 17, wherein the updating of the profile based on the information of the battery by the processor includes: updating, by the processor, a point at which a change rate of the voltage parameter according to the SOC is 0 among points included in the profile, based on the information of the battery (Khalid at Para. [0009] discloses that the point where the rate of change is zero called the slope confidence:” the measurement update step may include correcting the first state of charge utilizing the battery parameter, the Kalman gain of the error covariance prediction for the first state of charge of the battery, and the mapping the open circuit voltage to the first state of charge to provide the estimated present state of charge.”).
As per claim 19, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control method of claim 12, wherein the identifying of the information of the battery of the vehicle, the information including the at least one of the charge current of the battery, the discharge current of the battery, the charge voltage of the battery, the discharge voltage of the battery, or the temperature of the battery, or the any combination thereof by the processor (Khalid at Para. [0052] discloses some the parameters initially identified including current and voltage:” the battery's dynamics are modeled using a 1-RC or Thevenin battery model as shown in FIG. 5. The ohmic resistance (R0), RC pair's resistance (R1) and capacitance (C1), voltage across the RC pair (V.sub.1), terminal voltage (V.sub.t), and the fuel cell output current (I.sub.FC) values may be used to build the state transition and control input transition for the state prediction step, and to update the measurement estimate during the correction stage”.) includes:
identifying, by the processor, the charge voltage or the discharge voltage, based on an open circuit voltage (OCV) (Khalid at Figure 4, OCV and SOC relationship, and equation 6 at Para. [0062] algebraically showing OCV as a function of charge and discharge cycles and in Para. [0042] disclosing that the voltage parameter is measure during the charging cycle:” controller 230 may further be configured to perform a correction stage including an observation matrix update step including mapping an open circuit voltage of the battery to the initial state of charge of the battery to obtain an open circuit voltage-initial state of charge confidence slope”.).
As per claim 20, Khalid, Sakai, and Du disclose a vehicle control method of claim 12, further comprising: storing, by the processor, the profile in at least one of a memory, a storage device of the vehicle, the storage device being different from the memory, or an external server (Khalid at Para. [0048] discloses that a storage medium stores operational data which under broadest reasonable interpretation would include the operational data for the battery:” non-transient computer readable memory in electrical communication with the controller, sensors, and other systems to store […] reference data, collected data”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIS B. RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8920. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 5:00pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 571-270-5744. 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.
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights