DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 4-8 is 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 a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 4 states that “feedback control is used to calculate the battery current error”. However, the feedback control in applicant’s disclosure is not used to calculate the battery current error, but rather the feedback control “operate[s] on the battery current error" ([0043]) in order to "to produce a unitless derate factor between zero and one" ([0044]). "The output of this feedback control can typically be a unitless derate factor" ([0046]). Therefore, there is not enough written description present in applicant’s disclosure to reasonably Convery to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicant possessed a method that uses feedback control to calculate a target battery current.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependency to claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonis (US 20230016228 A1) in view of Fredrickson et al. (US 20240388122 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Simonis teaches a method of adaptively derating a fuel cell electric vehicle ([0008]) based on a state of charge of a battery of the fuel cell electric vehicle, comprising:
calculating a target battery current based on the state of charge of the battery ([0055] and [0090], SOC as part of operating variables F is supplemented with SOC in order to generate artificial characteristics; [0111-0112], loading variable, such a battery current, is predicted based on the characteristics of the operating variables, i.e. SOC),
measuring an actual battery current of the battery ([0108]);
determining a battery current error based on a difference between the target battery current and the actual battery current ([0115] and [0118], the predicted characteristic of the loading variables, i.e. target battery current, is compared with the actual characteristic of the predicted loading variable, i.e. actual battery current).
Simonis teaches that this process is for increasing the accuracy of state of health assessments of the battery ([0133]). It does not teach implementing a performance derating for the fuel cell electric vehicle based on the battery current error. Note that Simonis recognizes both temperature and current as loading variables, of which an error represents a state of health of the battery ([0090] and [0115]).
In the field of derating electric vehicles based on battery conditions, Fredrickson teaches a implementing a performance derating for the fuel cell electric vehicle based on a variety of factors, including a battery current, battery temperature, and other metrics including state of health of the battery ([0069-0071]). This performance derating is done so as to preserve battery health ([0004]).
As Simonis teaches that the error in battery current and/or temperature is used as a metric for a state of health of the battery ([0090] and [0115]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to implement the performance derating of Fredrickson based on the battery current error determined by Simonis based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Fredrickson, of improving battery health, thereby increasing battery life, when the conditions in a battery indicate a degraded state of health ([0002] and [0067]). It also implements this improvement of battery health without jeopardizing essential vehicle functions ([0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Simonis further teaches:
wherein the target battery current includes a linear function of the state of charge of the battery ([0111-0112], loading variable, such a battery current, is produced as a linear variable of the characteristics of the operating variables, including SOC).
Regarding claim 4, Simonis further teaches:
wherein a feedback control is used to calculate the battery current error ([0112] and [0116], previous predictions are used as feedback to calculate the forecast, i.e. target, battery current error)
Regarding claim 9, Fredrickson further teaches:
wherein the performance derating is implemented using a unitless derate factor ([0101], the derating is a percent factor of the power).
Regarding claim 10, Fredrickson further teaches:
wherein the unitless derate factor is limited between zero and one ([0101], the exemplary system has its power reduced by 25%, 50%, or 100%).
Regarding claim 15, Simonis teaches a system for adaptively derating a fuel cell electric vehicle ([0008]) based on a state of charge of a battery of the fuel cell electric vehicle, comprising:
the fuel cell electric vehicle ([0053]) including:
the battery ([0053]);
and a vehicle control unit ([0054]) configured to:
calculate a target battery current based on the state of charge of the battery ([0055] and [0090], SOC as part of operating variables F is supplemented with SOC in order to generate artificial characteristics; [0111-0112], loading variable, such a battery current, is predicted based on the characteristics of the operating variables, i.e. SOC),
measure an actual battery current of the battery ([0108]); and
determine a battery current error based on a difference between the target battery current and the actual battery current ([0115] and [0118], the predicted characteristic of the loading variables, i.e. target battery current, is compared with the actual characteristic of the predicted loading variable, i.e. actual battery current).
Simonis teaches that this process is for increasing the accuracy of state of health assessments of the battery ([0133]). It does not teach implementing a performance derating for the fuel cell electric vehicle based on the battery current error. Note that Simonis recognizes both temperature and current as loading variables, of which an error represents a state of health of the battery ([0090] and [0115]).
In the field of derating electric vehicles based on battery conditions, Fredrickson teaches a implementing a performance derating for the fuel cell electric vehicle based on a variety of factors, including a battery current, battery temperature, and other metrics including state of health of the battery ([0069-0071]). This performance derating is done so as to preserve battery health ([0004]).
As Simonis teaches that the error in battery current and/or temperature is used as a metric for a state of health of the battery ([0090] and [0115]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to implement the performance derating of Fredrickson based on the battery current error determined by Simonis based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Fredrickson, of improving battery health, thereby increasing battery life, when the conditions in a battery indicate a degraded state of health ([0002] and [0067]). It also implements this improvement of battery health without jeopardizing essential vehicle functions ([0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Fredrickson further teaches:
wherein the performance derating is implemented using a unitless derate factor ([0101], the derating is a percent factor of the power).
Regarding claim 17, Fredrickson further teaches:
wherein the unitless derate factor is limited between zero and one ([0101], the exemplary system has its power reduced by 25%, 50%, or 100%).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonis in view of Fredrickson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 11780348 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Simonis does not teach that the target battery current is calculated based on a lookup table.
In the field of current control for electric vehicle batteries, Hu teaches using lookup tables to calculate target battery current limits (Col. 11, line 67 and Col, 12, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Simonis with the use of a lookup table for calculating the target battery current based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of incorporating the advantages of using lookup tables as well known in the art, such as increasing efficiency of the performed calculation.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonis in view of Fredrickson as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Farnsworth et al. (US 20230155149 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Simonis does not teach that the feedback control includes a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller.
In the field of battery and fuel cell control for electric vehicles, Farnsworth teaches using a feedback control that includes a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the feedback control of Simonis with the use of a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of incorporating the well-known advantages of such a controller, including to account for past error signal values as taught by Farnsworth ([0074]).
Regarding claim 7, Simonis does not teach that the feedback control comprises an optimal feedback control.
In the field of battery and fuel cell control for electric vehicles, Farnsworth teaches using a feedback control that comprises an optimal feedback control ([0074], the controller balances the feedback signals to optimize the control function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the feedback control of Simonis with the use of an optimal feedback control based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of incorporating the well-known advantages of such control, including to optimize control function based on the determined feedback as taught by Farnsworth ([0074]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonis in view of Fredrickson as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20160221469 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Simonis does not teach that the feedback control comprises a sliding mode feedback control.
In the field of battery and fuel cell control for electric vehicles, Cheng teaches using a feedback control that a sliding mode feedback control ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the feedback control of Simonis with the use of a sliding feedback control based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of incorporating the well-known advantages of such control, such as considering the road a vehicle is traveling on to improve feedback efficiency as taught by Cheng ([0006]).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonis in view of Fredrickson as applied to claims 4 and 1 above, and further in view of Kahn et al. (US 20220115879 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Simonis does not teach that a control gain or gains is selected to achieve a desired state of charge profile as a minimum state of charge is reached.
In the same field of endeavor, Kahn teaches using a control gain or gains is selected to achieve a desired state of charge profile as a minimum state of charge is reached ([0339], BMS nodes are configured to gain and discharge at rates so that the batteries achieve a minimum state of charge at the same time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the control of Simonis with the selective control of Kahn based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that multiple power sources achieve the minimum state of charge at approximately the same time, as taught by Kahn ([0339]).
Regarding claim 14, Simonis does not teach applying a low-pass filtering to the actual battery current before determining the battery current error.
In the same field of endeavor, Kahn teaches applying a low-pass filtering to an actual battery current ([0267]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply such a low-pass filter to the measured battery current before determining the battery current error, and it would have been obvious to do so at the effective date of filing based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Kahn, of removing noise that would interfere in accurate current detection ([0267]).
Claims 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonis in view of Fredrickson as applied to claims 10 and 17 above, and further in view of Yun et al. (US 20240100960 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Fredrickson teaches that the vehicle derates its electrical systems and powered devices ([0003]), but it doesn’t explicitly derate the vehicle tractive performance, and the prior combination does not teach wherein a maximum permitted tractive power is multiplied by the unitless derate factor to produce a final permitted tractive power.
In the field of derating electric vehicles, Yun teaches:
wherein a maximum permitted tractive power is multiplied by the unitless derate factor to produce a final permitted tractive power ([0092-0093], the derating factor is multiple with the driving power of the motor to limit it as is well understood in the art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the derating of the prior combination to also derate the vehicle tractive power based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to apply the derating of the prior combination to apply the performed derating to more system than just the electrical systems, thereby giving a greater degree of control over the amount of power saved from the derating.
Regarding claim 12, Fredrickson teaches that the vehicle derates its electrical systems and powered devices ([0003]), but it doesn’t explicitly derate the vehicle tractive performance, and the prior combination does not teach wherein a maximum permitted tractive power is multiplied by the unitless derate factor to produce a final permitted tractive power.
In the same field of electric vehicle performance derating, Yun does teach applying a derating technique to the propulsion systems of a vehicle by limiting the current to control the torque of the system, and that the torque is limited by the power limits of the battery ([0080-0081]). As one of ordinary skill in the art knows that power is directly proportional to current, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that when the power is reduced by a derating factor, this derating factor would also be used to multiply a tractive current to produce a final tractive current for the motivation of implementing the derating of the tractive power of the motor as intended by Yun ([0092-0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the derating of the prior combination to also derate the vehicle tractive current based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to apply the derating of the prior combination to apply the performed derating to more system than just the electrical systems, thereby giving a greater degree of control over the amount of power saved from the derating.
Regarding claim 18, Fredrickson teaches that the vehicle derates its electrical systems and powered devices ([0003]), but it doesn’t explicitly derate the vehicle tractive performance, and the prior combination does not teach wherein a maximum permitted tractive power is multiplied by the unitless derate factor to produce a final permitted tractive power.
In the field of derating electric vehicles, Yun teaches:
wherein a maximum permitted tractive power is multiplied by the unitless derate factor to produce a final permitted tractive power ([0092-0093], the derating factor is multiple with the driving power of the motor to limit it as is well understood in the art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the derating of the prior combination to also derate the vehicle tractive power based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to apply the derating of the prior combination to apply the performed derating to more system than just the electrical systems, thereby giving a greater degree of control over the amount of power saved from the derating.
Regarding claim 19, Fredrickson teaches that the vehicle derates its electrical systems and powered devices ([0003]), but it doesn’t explicitly derate the vehicle tractive performance, and the prior combination does not teach wherein a maximum permitted tractive power is multiplied by the unitless derate factor to produce a final permitted tractive power.
In the same field of electric vehicle performance derating, Yun does teach applying a derating technique to the propulsion systems of a vehicle by limiting the current to control the torque of the system, and that the torque is limited by the power limits of the battery ([0080-0081]). As one of ordinary skill in the art knows that power is directly proportional to current, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that when the power is reduced by a derating factor, this derating factor would also be used to multiply a tractive current to produce a final tractive current for the motivation of implementing the derating of the tractive power of the motor as intended by Yun ([0092-0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the derating of the prior combination to also derate the vehicle tractive current based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to apply the derating of the prior combination to apply the performed derating to more system than just the electrical systems, thereby giving a greater degree of control over the amount of power saved from the derating.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonis in view of Fredrickson as applied to claims 10 and 17 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20160105132 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Fredrickson teaches that the vehicle derates its electrical systems and powered devices ([0003]), but it doesn’t explicitly derate the vehicle tractive performance, and the prior combination does not that the tractive torque is multiplied directly by the unitless derate factor to produce a final tractive torque.
In the field of implementing a performance derating of vehicle power, Kim teaches that a tractive torque is multiplied directly by the unitless derate factor to produce a final tractive torque ([0037], the total torque is limited by the derating factor to calculate an available tractive torque based on the available torque considering the battery and motor system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the derating of the prior combination to also derate the vehicle tractive torque based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to apply the derating of the prior combination to apply the performed derating to more system than just the electrical systems, thereby giving a greater degree of control over the amount of power saved from the derating.
Regarding claim 20, Fredrickson teaches that the vehicle derates its electrical systems and powered devices ([0003]), but it doesn’t explicitly derate the vehicle tractive performance, and the prior combination does not that the tractive torque is multiplied directly by the unitless derate factor to produce a final tractive torque.
In the field of implementing a performance derating of vehicle power, Kim teaches that a tractive torque is multiplied directly by the unitless derate factor to produce a final tractive torque ([0037], the total torque is limited by the derating factor to calculate an available tractive torque based on the available torque considering the battery and motor system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the derating of the prior combination to also derate the vehicle tractive torque based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to apply the derating of the prior combination to apply the performed derating to more system than just the electrical systems, thereby giving a greater degree of control over the amount of power saved from the derating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
JACK R. BREWER
Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663