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 .
Claims 1-3 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-3 are rejected.
Specification
The title of the invention “CONTROLLER FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit”, “a first determination unit” and “a second determination unit” in claims 1. See specification (Page 6,ll 14-25), (Page 11,ll 12-16).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata (US 20160362099 A1), in view of Chow (US 20160209472 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Obata discloses a controller for an electric vehicle equipped with a battery [0027] “a hybrid vehicle 100 is provided with an engine 2, a vehicle driving device 22, a transmission gear 8, a drive shaft 12, vehicle wheels 14, a battery 16, and an electronic control unit (ECU) 26” [0035] “The ECU 26 performs controls on respective pieces of equipment in the hybrid vehicle 100.”, the controller includes:
a control unit for executing limit control for limiting a current of the battery in accordance with an evaluation value indicating a degree of high-rate deterioration of the battery [0032] “A current sensor 24 detects a current I that is input to and output from the battery 16” [0037] “the ECU 26 calculates an evaluation value ΣD(N) that shows the degree of the high-rate deterioration of the battery 16” [0038] “Upon the evaluation value ΣD(N) reaching a lower limit threshold (negative value), the ECU 26 limits (i.e., executing limit control) an input electric power upper limit value Win that shows a limit value of the electric power with which the battery 16 is charged (which is input to the battery 16). Upon the evaluation value ΣD(N) reaching an upper limit threshold (positive value), the ECU 26 limits an output electric power upper limit value Wout that shows a limit value of the electric power which is discharged (output) from the battery 16.”,
a second determination unit for determining, when the actual measured value is determined to be less than the predicted value …, whether the evaluation value exceeds a predetermined value [0065] “In the case of a determination that the hybrid vehicle 100 is stationary (YES in Step S210), the ECU 26 determines whether or not the evaluation value ΣD(N) calculated in the processing illustrated in FIG. 2 is lower than a threshold TH1 (Step S220). This threshold TH1 is a negative value.” [0067] “In a case where it is determined that the evaluation value ΣD(N) is lower than the threshold TH1 (YES in Step S220), the ECU 26 determines whether or not the evaluation value ΣD(N) is lower than a threshold TH2 (Step S240). The threshold TH2 is a negative value that is lower than the threshold TH1.” [0085] “the ECU 26 determines whether or not the evaluation value ΣD(N) exceeds a predetermined value. In a case where the evaluation value ΣD(N) exceeds the predetermined value, the ECU 26 causes the charging electric power of the battery 16 to fall short of that of a case where the evaluation value ΣD(N) is lower than the predetermined value.” Obata teaches determining and comparing the evaluation value ΣD(N) to predetermined thresholds (i.e., predetermined value) and whether the evaluation value exceeds a predetermined value.
wherein when the second determination unit determines that the evaluation value does not exceed the predetermined value, the control unit shifts a control state from a limit state where a current of the battery is limited to a relaxed state where a use limit of the current is relaxed compared to the limit state [0038] “the ECU 26 limits an input electric power upper limit value Win” [0065] “In the case of a determination that the hybrid vehicle 100 is stationary (YES in Step S210), the ECU 26 determines whether or not the evaluation value ΣD(N) calculated in the processing illustrated in FIG. 2 is lower than a threshold TH1 (Step S220). This threshold TH1 is a negative value.” [0068] “In a case where it is determined that the evaluation value ΣD(N) is not lower than the threshold TH2 (NO in Step S240), the ECU 26 executes the forced charging of the battery 16 with P2 (kW) (Step S250). P2 (kW) is a value (negative value) that exceeds P1 (kW). In other words, P2 (kW) falls short of P1 (kW) in a comparison between the absolute values of the charging electric power.” [0081] “the limitation of the input electric power upper limit value Win is relaxed by the absolute value of the charging electric power being lowered, which results in the suppression of the worsening of the fuel efficiency.” Obata teaches changing from a more constrained limiting rule (limited Win/reduced charging power) to a less constrained regime (limitation relaxed/higher charging power P1) depending on the evaluation value relative to predetermined thresholds.
Obata does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “a first determination unit for comparing a predicted value and an actual measured value of an internal resistance of the battery in order to determine a deterioration of the battery, and determining whether the actual measured value is less than the predicted value corresponding to an aging assumed in advance”
However, Chow teaches equivalent teachings wherein a first determination unit for comparing a predicted value and an actual measured value of an internal resistance of the battery in order to determine a deterioration of the battery [0007] “In one general aspect, a method of estimating battery life involving estimating first status information of a battery, based on battery information acquired from the battery, estimating second status information of the battery” [0014] “The estimating of the internal parameter may involve estimating, as the first status information, at least one of a capacity and an internal resistance from the battery information using a state space corresponding to the equivalent model.” [0015] “The estimating of the second status information may involve estimating, as the second status information, at least one of a capacity and an internal resistance estimated from a partial cycle count of the battery using the partial cycle model.” [0049] The life calculator 130 calculates the remaining useful life based on a comparison between the first status information and the second status information. The remaining useful life may refer to a duration of time left until the battery is predicted to reach an end of life (EOL).” Chow’s “first status information” includes internal resistance derived from battery information (i.e., measured/actual-based), and its “second status information” includes internal resistance derived from the predictive partial cycle model. Chow’s life calculator performs the comparison. This corresponds to the claimed “first determination unit” comparing predicted vs actual/measured internal resistance to evaluate deterioration,
and determining whether the actual measured value is less than the predicted value corresponding to an aging assumed in advance [0007] “using a partial cycle model corresponding to a battery degradation pattern for a partial cycle, and calculating the battery life based on a comparison between the first status information and the second status information” [0049] The life calculator 130 calculates the remaining useful life based on a comparison between the first status information and the second status information. The remaining useful life may refer to a duration of time left until the battery is predicted to reach an end of life (EOL).” [0060] “The model storage 221 includes a non-transitory computer memory that stores model data. The model storage 221 may store a partial cycle model to which a full cycle model associated with a degradation caused by a full charge/discharge of a battery is transformed.” Chow’s degradation-pattern partial cycle model is the “aging assumed in advance.” Chow’s comparison of measured/estimated internal resistance (from battery info) vs model-estimated internal resistance (from the partial cycle model) teaches determining the relationship between the two. Thus, determining whether measured is “less than” is predicted by the outcome of the comparison.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Obata and Chow to incorporate Chow’s measured vs model-predicted internal resistance comparison into Obata’s deterioration-based limiting scheme to improve battery-health determination and to avoid unnecessarily conservative limiting when the battery health is better than predicted to make the system compare a predicted value and an actual measured value of an internal resistance of the battery in order to determine a deterioration of the battery and determining whether the actual measured value is less than the predicted value corresponding to an aging assumed in advance.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Obata and Chow to improve battery health determination by estimating internal resistance from both measured battery data and a predictive partial cycle degradation model by comparing them based on historical data Chow [0053] “a method and apparatus for estimating a remaining useful life of a battery may apply a statistical analysis scheme to user history information, in order to accurately estimate the remaining useful life despite the partial charging and discharging of the battery. For example, a remaining useful life for partial charge/discharge may be estimated by a partial cycle model. In this example, when an internal resistance and a capacity of the battery that are updated in real time are determined to be different from values estimated by the partial cycle model, the partial cycle model may be modified.”
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Obata and Chow teaches the controller for an electric vehicle according to claim 1, Obata discloses wherein the relaxed state is a state where higher current can be used compared to the limited state [0075] “the ECU 26 in the hybrid vehicle 100 adopts the first electric power (P1) as the electric power for charging the secondary battery when the evaluation value ΣD(N) that shows the degree of the deterioration of the battery 16 which is attributable to the salt concentration bias of the battery 16 due to charging is equal to or higher than the threshold TH1 and adopts the second electric power (P2), which is less than the first electric power, as the electric power for charging the secondary battery when the evaluation value ΣD(N) that shows the degree of the deterioration of the battery 16 which is attributable to the salt concentration bias of the battery 16 due to charging is lower than the threshold TH1 as described above.” [0068] “In a case where it is determined that the evaluation value ΣD(N) is not lower than the threshold TH2 (NO in Step S240), the ECU 26 executes the forced charging of the battery 16 with P2 (kW) (Step S250). P2 (kW) is a value (negative value) that exceeds P1 (kW). In other words, P2 (kW) falls short of P1 (kW) in a comparison between the absolute values of the charging electric power.” Obata teaches higher vs lower allowed charging power states based on evaluation thresholds where a “relaxed” state is the higher charging power (P1) relative to the “limited” state (P2/P3).
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Obata and Chow teaches the controller for an electric vehicle according to claim 2, Obata discloses wherein the predetermined value is a threshold value that is set when the running load of the electric vehicle … [0065] “the ECU 26 determines whether or not the evaluation value ΣD(N) is lower than a threshold TH1.” [0067] “the ECU 26 determines whether or not the evaluation value ΣD(N) is lower than a threshold TH2.” [0085] “the ECU 26 determines whether or not the evaluation value ΣD(N) exceeds a predetermined value.” [0040] “During traveling of the vehicle, however, the hybrid vehicle 100 requires a large amount of electric power, and thus the necessity of forced charging is high. Meanwhile, during non-traveling of the vehicle, the hybrid vehicle 100 does not require a large amount of electric power, and thus the necessity of the forced charging is lower than during the traveling. In this case, a demerit is relatively small even if the charging electric power is limited.” See also Obata [0063-0064] “if not stationary (traveling), forced charging is executed with P1. [0065–0069] “if stationary, evaluation value ΣD(N) is compared to thresholds TH1/TH2 to select P1 vs P2 vs P3.” Obata teaches that the battery control thresholds and resulting limitation behavior are used in an operating context where the vehicle’s load/power demand differs (traveling vs not traveling) (i.e., running load) matters to how the system is configured and applied.
Obata does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “when the running load of the electric vehicle is a normal load”
However, Chow teaches equivalent teachings wherein when the running load of the electric vehicle is a normal load [0104] “The average battery power may be changed based on the driving style, despite the same average speed. In FIG. 8, “low aggression” indicates an example in which the electric vehicle is less aggressively driven, and “normal aggression” indicates an example in which the electric vehicle is normally driven. Additionally, “high aggression” indicates an example in which the electric vehicle is more aggressively driven, for example, is suddenly accelerated or suddenly stopped. Accordingly, more battery power may be consumed when a level of aggression increases. According to one example, the driving style of a driver may be obtained by retrieving the pattern of use of an electric vehicle as obtained from the electric vehicle.” Obata already uses predetermined thresholds (TH1/TH2) and both Obata and Chow teach that battery power demand varies with operating condition (traveling/non-traveling; normal/high aggression), it would have been obvious as a matter of routine design choice to define/set the claimed threshold (“predetermined value”) under baseline normal load/normal driving conditions (Chow’s “normal aggression” and Obata’s operating-demand discussion) and then apply that threshold in the controller logic.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Obata and Chow to incorporate Chow’s measured vs model-predicted internal resistance comparison into Obata’s deterioration-based limiting scheme to improve battery-health determination and to avoid unnecessarily conservative limiting when the battery health is better than predicted to make the system wherein the predetermined value is a threshold value that is set when the running load of the electric vehicle is a normal load.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Obata and Chow to improve battery health determination by estimating internal resistance from both measured battery data and a predictive partial cycle degradation model by comparing them based on historical data Chow [0053] “a method and apparatus for estimating a remaining useful life of a battery may apply a statistical analysis scheme to user history information, in order to accurately estimate the remaining useful life despite the partial charging and discharging of the battery. For example, a remaining useful life for partial charge/discharge may be estimated by a partial cycle model. In this example, when an internal resistance and a capacity of the battery that are updated in real time are determined to be different from values estimated by the partial cycle model, the partial cycle model may be modified.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662