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 .
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 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.
Introduction
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Examiner’s Notes
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 their 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 disclosure.
The computer program product of claim 19 is interpreted to be a computer program and a non-transitory computer readable medium, per paragraph(s) 125 of the specification as filed.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, “a computer system of claim 1” should be “the computer system of claim 1” for proper antecedent basis.
In claim 15, the claim should start with an “a”, i.e., “A battery management control system” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0086652 to Follen et al.
As per claim 1, Follen discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry (Follen; At least the abstract and figure 2) configured to:
obtain state of charge data from a brake energy storage battery of an electrically propelled vehicle, said vehicle comprising an electrical motor brake system for braking at least one electrical propulsion motor of said vehicle and charging the brake energy storage battery with regenerative energy obtained from the electrical propulsion motor (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 19), and
cause control of a state of charge of the brake energy storage battery based on road segment data associated with a road segment ahead of the vehicle and the state of charge data (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 19).
As per claim 2, Follen discloses wherein the road segment data comprises topography data and/or map data associated with a predicted route and/or a current position of the vehicle (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 44 and 46).
As per claim 3, Follen discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain weight data associated with a weight of the vehicle (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 51; the controller receives the vehicle mass and gravity, which is equal to weight), and
cause control of the state of charge of the brake energy storage battery based on the weight data (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 57; the controller controls the SOC based on the power requirement, which uses the weight as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 51).
As per claim 4, Follen discloses the processing circuitry being further configured to:
determine a target state of charge of the brake energy storage battery based on the road segment data (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 57), and
cause control of the state of charge of the brake energy storage battery based on the target state of charge (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 57).
As per claim 5, Follen discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine a regenerative charging level associated with the charging of the brake energy storage battery estimated to be provided by the electrical motor brake system for the road segment ahead of the vehicle (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59 and 60);
and determine the target state of charge based on the regenerative charging level (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59 and 60).
As per claim 6, Follen discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to process the road segment data to identify a downhill slope and cause control of the state of charge of the brake energy storage battery based on characteristics of the identified downhill slope (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59 and 60).
As per claim 7, Follen discloses wherein the vehicle comprises a propulsion battery configured to power the electric propulsion motor (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 26).
As per claim 10, Follen discloses wherein the propulsion battery forms the brake energy storage battery (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 26).
As per claim 11, Follen discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine based on the state of charge data the occurrence of a charging operation wherein the brake energy storage battery is recharged (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59 and 60), and
responsive to the occurrence of the charging operation, cause control of the charging operation based on the road segment data (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59 and 60).
As per claim 12, Follen discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
obtain braking operational data associated with the operation of the electrical motor brake system for the road segment ahead of the vehicle (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59 and 60), and
cause control of the state of charge of the brake energy storage battery based on said braking operational data (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59 and 60).
As per claim 13, Follen discloses wherein the road segment data comprises topography data and/or map data associated with a predicted route and/or a current position of the vehicle (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 23 and 46), and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain weight data associated with a weight of the vehicle (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 51),
obtain braking operational data associated with the operation of the electrical motor brake system for the road segment ahead of the vehicle (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59),
determine a target state of charge of the brake energy storage battery based on the road segment data (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59), and
cause control of the state of charge of the brake energy storage battery based on the weight data, the target state of charge and the braking operational data (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59),
and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to process the road segment data to identify a downhill slope and cause control of the state of charge of the brake energy storage battery based on characteristics of the identified downhill slope (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 59).
As per claim 14, Follen discloses an electrically propelled vehicle comprising at least one electrical propulsion motor, an electrical motor brake system for braking the at least one electrical propulsion motor and a computer system of claim 1 (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 25, 26, and the abstract).
As per claim 15, Follen discloses battery management control system comprising the computer system according to claim 1, wherein the battery management control system is configured to be operatively connected to an electrically propelled vehicle (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 25).
As per claims 16-18, Follen discloses the method associated with the system of claims 1, 3, and 4 (Follen; At least paragraph(s) the abstract). Therefore, claims 16-18 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 1, 3, and 4.
As per claim 19, Follen discloses a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by a processing circuitry, the method of claim 16 (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 40 and claim 16 above).
As per claim 20, Follen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 16 (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 40 and claim 16 above).
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) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follen in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0278651 to Genter et al.
As per claim 8, Follen discloses that multiple batteries can be used (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 30), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the brake energy storage battery is formed by a battery unit provided separately from the propulsion battery.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Genter (Genter; At least paragraph(s) 62 and figure 2). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Genter into the invention of Follen with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Having a second battery would allow powering of other devices, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 12 of Genter, without using energy from the primary battery, which would reduce the range of the vehicle.
As per claim 9, Follen discloses that multiple batteries can be used (Follen; At least paragraph(s) 30), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the brake energy storage battery to be inoperable in response to the state of charge of the propulsion battery being below a capacity threshold value.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Genter (Genter; At least paragraph(s) 131 and figure 4; if the tractor (propulsion) battery is not charged, it is charged and the trailer battery is not (i.e., inoperable) ). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Genter into the invention of Follen with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Ensuring the primary (propulsion) battery is charged, ensures that adequate power is available to the main systems of the vehicle, as discussed in paragraph(s) 112 of Genter, resulting in a better user experience. Further, determining the order of charging of batteries in a multiple battery system would be within the skill of one in the art during design and testing and a design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665