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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treharne, US 2019/0176632 A1, in view of Spigno, et al., US 2024/0092221 A1.
As per Claim 1, Treharne teaches vehicle control apparatus (¶¶ 14-16), comprising:
a processor (¶ 23); and
a memory (¶¶ 23, 27), wherein the processor is configured to monitor at least one of battery energy information or charging information of a vehicle (¶¶ 27-28; “operating conditions such as battery temperature, battery age, voltage at the start of recharge, battery electrical loads, and other factors”), determine whether to generate at least one of first pattern information for setting a charging range of a battery of the vehicle or second pattern information for adjusting a charge current using a charging time taken to charge the battery (¶ 28; after determining “how much time it will take to reach a full battery charge“), by monitoring the at least one of the battery energy information or the charging information (¶ 32; “the measured SOC at predetermined time increments”).
Treharne does not expressly teach: identifying an input indicating consent to updating the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information, wherein the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information is generated based on determination to generate the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information, in charging profile information, and updating the charging profile information, using the generated at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information, in response to the identified input. Spigno teaches:
identifying an input indicating consent to updating the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information (¶ 12; “to derive an updated maximum SOC level and an updated minimum SOC level for the SOC operating window”), wherein the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information is generated based on determination to generate the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information, in charging profile information (¶ 38; per machine learning method 82 of Figure 8); and
update the charging profile information, using the generated at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information, in response to the identified input (¶ 41; “additional periodic charging 26.sub.a in order to establish or produce the updated minimum and maximum SOC levels 24.sub.u, 22.sub.u, such as in conjunction with blocks 200-210” as in Figures 3 and 4).
At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the vehicle control apparatus of Treharne with the machine learning and updating system of Spigno, in order to avoid overcharging a vehicle battery.
As per Claim 2, Treharne teaches that the processor is configured to:
identify minimum remaining energy of the battery and discharge energy of the battery, using the battery energy information (¶ 24; as per “an SOC low threshold”);
set the charging range including an upper limit state of charge (SOC) in which an SOC usage range corresponding to the discharge energy of the battery is added from a lower limit SOC corresponding to the minimum remaining energy of the battery, using the minimum remaining energy and the discharge energy (¶¶ 26-27; per a “charging limit” or “a full charge”); and
charge the battery to the upper limit SOC, during the charging time, when the battery is charged based on the charging profile information updated based on the first pattern information indicating the charging range (¶ 28; with “recharge current supplied to the battery”).
As per Claim 3, Treharne does not expressly teach that the processor is configured to: determine a threshold current, such that a connection time when the battery is connected to a charging connector to charge the battery and the charging time match with each other, based on a relationship among rated energy of the battery, wherein the rated energy is identified using the charging information, the connection time, and a current SOC of the battery; and charge the battery during the connection time by means of the charge current, wherein the charge current is less than or equal to the threshold current, when the battery is charged based on the charging profile information, wherein the charging profile information is updated based on the second pattern information indicating the determined threshold current. Spigno teaches that the processor is configured to:
determine a threshold current, such that a connection time when the battery is connected to a charging connector to charge the battery and the charging time match with each other, based on a relationship among rated energy of the battery (¶ 30; current range 97 of Figure 2), wherein the rated energy is identified using the charging information, the connection time, and a current SOC of the battery (¶¶ 29-30); and
charge the battery during the connection time by means of the charge current, wherein the charge current is less than or equal to the threshold current (¶ 33; per charging instances “261, 262, 263, 26m” of Figure 3), when the battery is charged based on the charging profile information, wherein the charging profile information is updated based on the second pattern information indicating the determined threshold current (¶ 35; as per “the total energy requirement 64” of Figure 3).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 4, Treharne teaches that the processor is configured to:
identify an upper limit SOC, based on minimum remaining energy and discharge energy identified using the battery energy information, when the battery is charged based on the charging profile information, wherein the charging profile information is updated based on the first pattern information and the second pattern information (¶ 25); and
charge the battery to the upper limit SOC, during a connection time when the battery is connected to a charging connector to charge the battery, by the charge current (¶¶ 21-22), wherein the charge current is less than or equal to a threshold current determined based on a relationship among rated energy of the battery, the connection time, and a current SOC (¶ 28).
As per Claim 5, Treharne further teaches: a display, wherein the processor is configured to display a visual object indicating an update of the charging profile information on the display to update the charging profile information (¶¶ 38-39), when the processor and the memory are included in the vehicle (¶¶ 23, 27).
Treharne does not expressly teach receiving the input indicating the consent to the update, using the visual object, and initiating the update, in response to the input. Spigno teaches receiving the input indicating the consent to the update, using the visual object, and initiating the update, in response to the input (¶ 38; “to derive an updated maximum SOC level 22u and an updated minimum SOC level 24u for the SOC operating window 20” as per Figure 1). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 6, Treharne does not expressly teach that the processor is configured to: identify information of an owner who owns the battery; without displaying the visual object, initiate the update, when the owner who owns the battery is a corporate body; and initiate to display the visual object, when the owner who owns the battery is an individual. Spigno teaches that the processor is configured to: identify information of an owner who owns the battery (¶ 49; after “receiving confirmation or acknowledgment of the sent data/results from the customer/owner”);
without displaying the visual object, initiate the update, when the owner who owns the battery is a corporate body (¶ 46; “derive an updated maximum SOC level 22u and an updated minimum SOC level 24u for the SOC operating window 20” of Figure 1); and
initiating to display the visual object, when the owner who owns the battery is an individual (¶ 49; “updating or adjusting the visual display of the window/information”).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 7, Treharne teaches that the processor is configured to: generate the first pattern information, when a difference between rated energy of the battery and discharge energy of the battery is greater than or equal to threshold energy (¶¶ 25-26).
As per Claim 8, Treharne teaches that the processor is configured to: generate the second pattern information, when a ratio between a connection time between the battery and a charging connector and the charging time is greater than or equal to a threshold ratio (¶ 35; if “at step 220 the actual SOC and remaining energy is outside of the predetermined threshold range” as in Figure 2).
As per Claim 9, Treharne does not expressly teach that the processor is configured to: provide a state of health (SOH) indicating remaining life of the battery, the remaining life to increase, by updating the charging profile information using the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information. Spigno teaches that the processor is configured to: provide a state of health (SOH) indicating remaining life of the battery (¶ 29; to indicate “the effective service life of the battery 10” as per Figure 2), the remaining life to increase, by updating the charging profile information using the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information (¶ 38). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 10, Treharne teaches that the processor is configured to:
transmit a first signal including at least one of rated energy of the battery, discharge energy of the battery, remaining energy of the battery, minimum remaining energy of the battery, or any combination thereof to an external electronic device (¶¶ 25-26), when the processor and the memory are included in the vehicle (¶¶ 23, 27);
obtain the first pattern information from the external electronic device (¶ 28; as “a plurality of lookup tables is stored in a memory including different current-time relationships that each correspond to a particular recharge profile”).
Treharne does not expressly teach: transmitting a second signal including a connection time between the battery and a charging connector and the charging time to the external electronic device; and obtaining the second pattern information from the external electronic device. Spigno teaches:
transmitting a second signal including a connection time between the battery and a charging connector and the charging time to the external electronic device (¶ 37; beginning battery charge level 38 of Figure 6); and
obtaining the second pattern information from the external electronic device (¶ 30; e.g., by measuring at charging station 96 of Figure 3).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 11, Treharne teaches that the processor is configured to:
receive at least one of the battery energy information or the charging information corresponding to each of a plurality of vehicles including the vehicle from the plurality of vehicles (¶¶ 24-25), when the processor and the memory are included outside the vehicle (¶ 27; “from an external source”); and
generate at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information corresponding to the vehicle among the plurality of vehicles, by monitoring the received at least one of the battery energy information or the charging information (¶ 28).
As per Claim 12, Treharne teaches a method (¶¶ 14-16), comprising:
monitoring at least one of battery energy information or charging information of a vehicle (¶¶ 22, 27-28; “operating conditions such as battery temperature, battery age, voltage at the start of recharge, battery electrical loads, and other factors”); and
determining whether to generate at least one of first pattern information for setting a charging range of a battery of the vehicle or second pattern information for adjusting a charge current using a charging time taken to charge the battery (¶ 28; after determining “how much time it will take to reach a full battery charge“), by monitoring the at least one of the battery energy information or the charging information (¶ 32; “the measured SOC at predetermined time increments”).
Treharne does not expressly teach: identifying an input indicating consent to updating the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information, wherein the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information is generated based on determination to generate the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information, in charging profile information; and updating the charging profile information, using the generated at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information, in response to the identified input. Spigno teaches:
identifying an input indicating consent to updating the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information (¶ 12; “to derive an updated maximum SOC level and an updated minimum SOC level for the SOC operating window”), wherein the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information is generated based on determination to generate the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information, in charging profile information (¶ 38; per machine learning method 82 of Figure 8); and
updating the charging profile information, using the generated at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information, in response to the identified input (¶ 41; “additional periodic charging 26a in order to establish or produce the updated minimum and maximum SOC levels 24u, 22u, such as in conjunction with blocks 200-210” as in Figures 3 and 4).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 13, Treharne teaches that updating the charging profile information includes:
identifying minimum remaining energy of the battery and discharge energy of the battery, using the battery energy information (¶ 24; as per “an SOC low threshold”);
setting the charging range including an upper limit state of charge (SOC) in which an SOC usage range corresponding to the discharge energy of the battery is added from a lower limit SOC corresponding to the minimum remaining energy of the battery, using the minimum remaining energy and the discharge energy (¶¶ 26-27; per a “charging limit” or “a full charge”); and
charging the battery to the upper limit SOC, during the charging time, when the battery is charged based on the charging profile information updated based on the first pattern information indicating the charging range (¶ 28; with “recharge current supplied to the battery”).
As per Claim 14, Treharne does not expressly teach that updating the charging profile information includes: determining a threshold current, such that a connection time when the battery is connected to a charging connector to charge the battery and the charging time match with each other, based on a relationship among rated energy of the battery, wherein the rated energy is identified using the charging information, the connection time, and a current SOC of the battery; and charging the battery during the connection time by the charge current, wherein the charge current is less than or equal to the threshold current, when the battery is charged based on the charging profile information, wherein the charging profile information is updated based on the second pattern information indicating the determined threshold current. Spigno teaches that updating the charging profile information includes:
determining a threshold current, such that a connection time when the battery is connected to a charging connector to charge the battery and the charging time match with each other, based on a relationship among rated energy of the battery (¶ 30; current range 97 of Figure 2), wherein the rated energy is identified using the charging information, the connection time, and a current SOC of the battery (¶¶ 29-30); and
charging the battery during the connection time by the charge current, wherein the charge current is less than or equal to the threshold current (¶ 33; per charging instances “261, 262, 263, 26m” of Figure 3), when the battery is charged based on the charging profile information, wherein the charging profile information is updated based on the second pattern information indicating the determined threshold current (¶ 35; as per “the total energy requirement 64” of Figure 3).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 15, Treharne teaches that updating the charging profile information includes:
identifying an upper limit SOC, based on minimum remaining energy and discharge energy identified using the battery energy information, when the battery is charged based on the charging profile information, wherein the charging profile information is updated based on the first pattern information and the second pattern information (¶ 25); and
charging the battery to the upper limit SOC, during a connection time when the battery is connected to a charging connector to charge the battery, by the charge current (¶¶ 21-22), wherein the charge current is less than or equal to a threshold current determined based on a relationship among rated energy of the battery, the connection time, and a current SOC (¶ 28).
As per Claim 16, Treharne teaches that identifying the input includes: displaying a visual object indicating an update of the charging profile information on a display to update the charging profile information (¶¶ 38-39).
Treharne does not expressly teach receiving the input indicating the consent to the update, using the visual object. Spigno teaches receiving the input indicating the consent to the update, using the visual object. See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 17, Treharne does not expressly teach that displaying the visual object includes: identifying information of an owner who owns the battery; without displaying the visual object, initiating the update, when the owner who owns the battery is a corporate body; and initiating to display the visual object, when the owner who owns the battery is an individual. Spigno teaches that displaying the visual object includes:
identifying information of an owner who owns the battery;
without displaying the visual object, initiating the update, when the owner who owns the battery is a corporate body (¶ 46; “derive an updated maximum SOC level 22u and an updated minimum SOC level 24u for the SOC operating window 20” of Figure 1); and
initiating to display the visual object, when the owner who owns the battery is an individual (¶ 49; after “receiving confirmation or acknowledgment of the sent data/results from the customer/owner”).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 18, Treharne teaches that determining whether to generate the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information includes: generating the first pattern information, when a difference between rated energy of the battery and discharge energy of the battery is greater than or equal to threshold energy (¶¶ 25-26).
As per Claim 19, Treharne teaches that determining whether to generate the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information includes: generating the second pattern information, when a ratio between a connection time between the battery and a charging connector and the charging time is greater than or equal to a threshold ratio (¶ 35; if “at step 220 the actual SOC and remaining energy is outside of the predetermined threshold range” as in Figure 2).
As per Claim 20, Treharne does not expressly teach that updating the charging profile information includes: providing a state of health (SOH) indicating remaining life of the battery, the remaining life to increase, by updating the charging profile information using the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information. Spigno teaches that updating the charging profile information includes: providing a state of health (SOH) indicating remaining life of the battery (¶ 29; to indicate “the effective service life of the battery 10” as per Figure 2), the remaining life to increase, by updating the charging profile information using the at least one of the first pattern information or the second pattern information (¶ 38). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661