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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-8, 14, and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woll (EP 3829920), herein after referred to as Woll, and Lee (US 11970229), herein after referred to as Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Woll discloses:
a vehicle including a plurality of wheels, (see at least [0008] “A method for discharging a hybrid battery system in an electric vehicle”)
a driving motor for supplying a driving force to the plurality of wheels, (see at least [0002] “an electric motor for driving the electric vehicle.”)
and a controller for controlling power supply to the driving motor or charging by the driving motor, (see at least [0030] “The battery for an electric vehicle system comprises at least one high energy battery, at least one high power battery and a control unit for controlling and supervising the at least one high energy battery and at least one high power battery.”)
the method comprising: selecting, by the controller, a battery among a first battery and a second battery according to [a speed factor] and a power of the driving motor; (see at least [0014] “the at least one high energy battery is exclusively used to supply a discharging current to the electric motor when the speed of the electric vehicle is higher than the determined first speed value and when the discharging current required by the electric motor is lower than a determined discharging current value.”)
and controlling, by the controller, one or both of the power supply or the charging using the selected battery. (see at least [0012] “There are certain situations when the high energy battery is used exclusively to supply the discharging current to the electric motor, and certain situations when the high power battery is used exclusively to supply the discharging current to the electric motor.”)
Woll does not explicitly disclose:
[selecting the battery] according to RPM
In the same field of endeavor, Lee combines with Woll to make obvious:
[selecting the battery] according to RPM
The Lee reference discloses (see at least [0081] “the transmission subsystem 128 comprises a single-speed transmission. The single-speed is often sufficient because an electric vehicle provides sufficient torque, such that multiple are not required.”), in a single-speed transmission the RPM of the motor is a direct correlation with the speed of the vehicle. This then makes it obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention to interpret that in a combined Woll and Lee, Woll’s disclosure of (see at least [0014] “Preferably, the at least one high energy battery is exclusively used to supply a discharging current to the electric motor when the speed of the electric vehicle is higher than the determined first speed value and when the discharging current required by the electric motor is lower than a determined discharging current value.”) which discloses battery selection based on both vehicle speed and motor power is indirectly basing the battery selection on the motor RPM and power.
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the electric vehicle field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Woll to include a single-speed transmission as taught by Lee to take advantage of the torque generated by electric vehicles not requiring a multi0gear transmission [0081]. As the Woll reference is silent regarding vehicle transmission, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to seek and combine with the Lee reference which does disclose electric vehicle transmission information.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Woll discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Woll further discloses:
wherein controlling the power supply or the charging using the selected battery includes additionally using another battery based on a determination that the power is not satisfied with the selected battery. (see at least [0043] “If the discharging current required by the electric motor 25 is higher than the determined discharging current value, then the high power battery 14 additionally supplies a discharging current to the electric motor 25 in a step 213.”)
Regarding Claim 12, Woll discloses:
a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions, (see at least [0030] “The battery for an electric vehicle system comprises at least one high energy battery, at least one high power battery and a control unit for controlling and supervising the at least one high energy battery and at least one high power battery.”)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to select a battery among a first battery and a second battery according to [a speed factor] and a power of the driving motor; (see at least [0014] “the at least one high energy battery is exclusively used to supply a discharging current to the electric motor when the speed of the electric vehicle is higher than the determined first speed value and when the discharging current required by the electric motor is lower than a determined discharging current value.”)
and control one or both of the power supply or the charging using the selected battery. (see at least [0012] “There are certain situations when the high energy battery is used exclusively to supply the discharging current to the electric motor, and certain situations when the high power battery is used exclusively to supply the discharging current to the electric motor.”)
Woll does not explicitly disclose:
[selecting the battery] according to RPM
In the same field of endeavor, Lee combines with Woll to make obvious:
[selecting the battery] according to RPM
The Lee reference discloses (see at least [0081] “the transmission subsystem 128 comprises a single-speed transmission. The single-speed is often sufficient because an electric vehicle provides sufficient torque, such that multiple are not required.”), in a single-speed transmission the RPM of the motor is a direct correlation with the speed of the vehicle. This then makes it obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention to interpret that in a combined Woll and Lee, Woll’s disclosure of (see at least [0014] “Preferably, the at least one high energy battery is exclusively used to supply a discharging current to the electric motor when the speed of the electric vehicle is higher than the determined first speed value and when the discharging current required by the electric motor is lower than a determined discharging current value.”) which discloses battery selection based on both vehicle speed and motor power is indirectly basing the battery selection on the motor RPM and power.
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the electric vehicle field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Woll to include a single-speed transmission as taught by Lee to take advantage of the torque generated by electric vehicles not requiring a multi0gear transmission [0081]. As the Woll reference is silent regarding vehicle transmission, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to seek and combine with the Lee reference which does disclose electric vehicle transmission information.
Regarding Claim 13, Woll discloses:
a plurality of wheels, (see at least [0008] “A method for discharging a hybrid battery system in an electric vehicle”)
a driving motor for supplying a driving force to the plurality of wheels, (see at least [0002] “an electric motor for driving the electric vehicle.”)
and a controller including a memory storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to control power supply to the driving motor or charging by the driving motor, (see at least [0030] “The battery for an electric vehicle system comprises at least one high energy battery, at least one high power battery and a control unit for controlling and supervising the at least one high energy battery and at least one high power battery.”)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the controller to select a battery among a first battery and a second battery according to [a speed factor] and a power of the driving motor; (see at least [0014] “the at least one high energy battery is exclusively used to supply a discharging current to the electric motor when the speed of the electric vehicle is higher than the determined first speed value and when the discharging current required by the electric motor is lower than a determined discharging current value.”)
and control one or both of the power supply or the charging using the selected battery. (see at least [0012] “There are certain situations when the high energy battery is used exclusively to supply the discharging current to the electric motor, and certain situations when the high power battery is used exclusively to supply the discharging current to the electric motor.”)
Woll does not explicitly disclose:
[selecting the battery] according to RPM
In the same field of endeavor, Lee combines with Woll to make obvious:
[selecting the battery] according to RPM
The Lee reference discloses (see at least [0081] “the transmission subsystem 128 comprises a single-speed transmission. The single-speed is often sufficient because an electric vehicle provides sufficient torque, such that multiple are not required.”), in a single-speed transmission the RPM of the motor is a direct correlation with the speed of the vehicle. This then makes it obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention to interpret that in a combined Woll and Lee, Woll’s disclosure of (see at least [0014] “Preferably, the at least one high energy battery is exclusively used to supply a discharging current to the electric motor when the speed of the electric vehicle is higher than the determined first speed value and when the discharging current required by the electric motor is lower than a determined discharging current value.”) which discloses battery selection based on both vehicle speed and motor power is indirectly basing the battery selection on the motor RPM and power.
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the electric vehicle field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Woll to include a single-speed transmission as taught by Lee to take advantage of the torque generated by electric vehicles not requiring a multi0gear transmission [0081]. As the Woll reference is silent regarding vehicle transmission, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to seek and combine with the Lee reference which does disclose electric vehicle transmission information.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Woll discloses the limitations of Claim 13, and Woll further discloses:
wherein controlling the power supply or the charging using the selected battery includes additionally using another battery based on a determination that the power is not satisfied with the selected battery. (see at least [0043] “If the discharging current required by the electric motor 25 is higher than the determined discharging current value, then the high power battery 14 additionally supplies a discharging current to the electric motor 25 in a step 213.”)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woll (EP 3829920), herein after referred to as Woll, in view of Lee (US 11970229), herein after referred to as Lee, and Cao (US 20230365025), herein after referred to as Cao.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Woll discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Woll does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising determining a driving mode as a low-power mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Cao discloses:
further comprising determining a driving mode as a low-power mode. (see at least [0051] “ Similarly, the low power mode L is the mode that only a few (less than half) battery modules 13I in the variable battery pack unit 12,”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the electric vehicle battery control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Woll to determine a driving mode as a low-power mode as taught by Cao to reduce electrical consumption during low-power-needed driving [0069].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Woll discloses the limitations of Claim 9, but Woll does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the low-power mode comprises at least one of a Normal mode, a Comfort mode, or an Eco mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Cao discloses:
wherein the low-power mode comprises at least one of a Normal mode, a Comfort mode, or an Eco mode (see at least [0069] “the battery control module 16, when judging that the current vehicle speed is basically equal to the allowable speed of the road condition, switches to the low power mode L to keep the vehicle driving at a constant speed at the current vehicle speed.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the electric vehicle battery control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Woll to determine a driving mode as a low-power mode which is at least one of a Normal mode, a Comfort mode, or an Eco mode, as taught by Cao to reduce electrical consumption during low-power-needed driving [0069].
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woll (EP 3829920), herein after referred to as Woll, in view of Lee (US 11970229), herein after referred to as Lee, and Ortmann (US 10910614), herein after referred to as Ortmann.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Woll discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Woll does not explicitly disclose:
wherein selecting the battery includes determining that the second battery is detachably connected to a power system including the first battery.
In the same field of endeavor, Ortmann discloses:
wherein selecting the battery includes determining that the second battery is detachably connected to a power system including the first battery. (see at least [Col 6, Ln 26-29] “ the first battery array 25A and the second battery array 25B are modular battery array units that are removable from the secondary battery pack 54”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the electric vehicle battery field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Woll to determine the second battery is detachably connected to a power system including the first battery, as taught by Ortmann to use modular and removable battery packs [Col 6].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hallberg (US 20230105731) which discloses a system for determining which of a plurality or pair of vehicle batteries to charge during driving based on operational factors other than the motor rpm and power of the present claimed invention.
Patel (US 20210344214) which also discloses a system for determining which of a pair of vehicle batteries to charge during driving based on operational factors other than the motor rpm and power of the present claimed invention.
Fatemi (US 10940771) which discloses a battery-motor control system for an electric vehicle system which does map power and rpm, however uses this to determine motor output during a battery failure/degradation situation rather then to determine a battery to charge/discharge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights