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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated 7/27/2026. Claims 1-18 and 20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. All pending claims therefore have an effective filing date of 4/5/2024.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see pages 10-11 of 14, filed 7/27/2026, with respect to specification objections, claim objections, 112(b) rejections to claims 1-17 and 19-20, and 101 rejection (software per se) of claim 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections, claim objections, 112(b) rejections to claims 1-17 and 19-20, and 101 rejection (software per se) of claim 19 of record have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see page 11 of 14, filed 7/27/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejection of claim 18 has been fully considered and but is not persuasive. Claim 18 was not amended so as to overcome the 112(b) rejection of record, nor were any arguments presented addressing the lack of amendment, therefore the rejection is again included below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-12 of 14, filed 7/27/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that the 101 rejection of record to claims 1-10, 13, and 15-20 are improper, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant has argued that the technical problem presented in the specification is addressed by establishing a temporary, virtual SOC buffer that is dynamically adjusted so as to accommodate a vehicle operator, however the specificity argued was not presented in the claims. Additionally, the Applicant has argued that filtered SOC data is used to control the vehicle, and thus the rejections are improper. The Examiner notes that this tangible vehicle control is only addressed in claim 12, which was previously indicated as a practical application; however these controls were not included in claim 1, and thus for reasons re-stated below, remains rejected via 101 as not claiming a practical application.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-14 of 14, filed 7/27/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that none of the references of record disclose or teach the claimed subject matter, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant has argued that Oi does not disclose a “virtual, temporary SOC buffer that dynamically accumulated and depletes” which the Examiner notes was not explicitly claimed. The “SOC buffer” which was claimed has been rejected by the teachings of Oi, detailed in Figure 4, [0036], and [0040]. To elaborate, the buffer is equated to the difference between the pre-correction SOC and the actual SOC, which is determined by the correction value.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the claim as currently presented states “…determine…an SOC difference based on the measured SOC data and the expected SOC decrease rate…” which is indefinite to the Examiner because it is not apparent how this difference is obtained. A difference typically occurs between two numbers with similar units, however a measured SOC data (units of percentage, indicative of available capacity) and a SOC decrease rate (units of percentage per time) cannot be directly combined in a way that yields a difference; the Examiner notes that if the limitation as presented (conceptually) is what the Applicant is intending, then different terminology should be utilized. A proper “difference” would be a comparison of a measured SOC decrease rate and an expected SOC decrease rate, for instance, or similarly, a comparison of a measured SOC and an expected SOC. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the claims according to either of these scenarios.
Claim 20 is also rejected since the claims are dependent on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Independent claims 1 and 18 are directed towards a system and method, respectively. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1 and analogous claim 18 and the corresponding dependent claims 2-17 and 20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain measured state of charge (SOC) data of an energy source of a vehicle,
determine that a measured SOC decrease rate is greater than an expected SOC decrease rate by a predetermined SOC decrease rate threshold;
determine an SOC difference based on the measured SOC decrease rate and the expected SOC decrease rate;
determine an SOC correction based on the SOC difference;
reduce an SOC buffer of the energy source by the SOC correction; and
provide filtered SOC data of the energy source by increasing the measured SOC data by the SOC correction.
These limitations, as drafted, are a system that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process. For example, “determine that a measured SOC decrease rate is greater than an expected SOC decrease rate…” may be interpreted as mentally determining a comparison between two values, “determine an SOC difference based on…” may be interpreted as mentally comparing two values, “determine an SOC correction…” may be interpreted as mentally determining an offset amount, “reduce an SOC buffer…” may be interpreted as mentally adjusting a value prior to usage, and “increasing the measured SOC data…” may be interpreted as mentally adjusting a value. Therefore, the claims are directed towards reciting an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application.”
In the present case, the additional elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain measured state of charge (SOC) data of an energy source of a vehicle,
determine that a measured SOC decrease rate is greater than an expected SOC decrease rate by a predetermined SOC decrease rate threshold;
determine an SOC difference based on the measured SOC decrease rate and the expected SOC decrease rate;
determine an SOC correction based on the SOC difference;
reduce an SOC buffer of the energy source by the SOC correction; and
provide filtered SOC data of the energy source by increasing the measured SOC data by the SOC correction.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of “a computer system comprising processing circuitry” and “an energy source of a vehicle” are merely a generic components which allows the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). The Examiner submits that these elements are mere computers or other machinery used as a tool to perform the existing process.
The limitations of “obtain measured state of charge (SOC) data” and “provide filtered SOC data of the energy source” and are directed towards extra-solution activity that is data gathering and data output, which does not add any meaningful limits on the claim. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed, the additional elements of “a computer system comprising processing circuitry” and “an energy source of a vehicle” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (using additional elements such as “processing circuitry”). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). In addition, the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtain measured state of charge (SOC) data” and “provide filtered SOC data of the energy source” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processing circuitry is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 13, recite additional mental processes which are categorized similar to above, expounding on the abstract idea of independent claim 1.
Claims 3 and 6 recite additional mental processes aided by additional element which are insignificant extra-solution activity, all are categorized similar to above, expounding on the abstract idea of independent claim 1.
Claim 15-17 and 20 recite additional generic components and further characterizes previously identified extra-solution activity by establishing a field of use, which do not provide significantly more to the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 18, respectively.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 13, 15-17, and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of analogous independent claims 1 and 18.
Therefore, claims 1-10, 13, 15-18, and 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 9, 12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US-2015/0331055; hereinafter Oi; already of record) in view of Yang (US-2023/0226946; already of record) and Stekkelpak et al. (US-8,515,499; hereinafter Stekkelpak; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Oi discloses a computer system (see Oi at least [0019]-[0020] "FIG. 1 is a diagram for illustrating a configuration of a power supply system of a vehicle according an embodiment… FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a system configuration of a control system of a vehicle according an embodiment.") … configured to:
obtain measured state of charge (SOC) data of an energy source of a vehicle (see Oi at least [0024] "The battery capacity calculation part 14 calculates the current SOC of the battery 60. The battery capacity calculation part 14 outputs a control SOC based on the calculated SOC of the battery 60. Details of the battery capacity calculation part 14 are described hereinafter."),
…
determine an SOC difference (see Oi at least Fig 4, [0033] "...In the following, the calculation value of the SOC calculated by the SOC calculation part 141 is also referred to as “a pre-correction SOC”, hereinafter." and [0037] "The control SOC calculation part 144 calculates the control SOC based on the pre-correction SOC calculated by the SOC calculation part 141 and the correction value calculated by the correction value calculation part 143..." – SOC difference depicted in Figure 4 between pre-correction SOC and actual SOC) …
determine an SOC correction based on the SOC difference (see Oi at least Fig 4, [0036] "The correction value calculation part 143 calculates a correction value(s) for the pre-correction SOC calculated by the SOC calculation part 141..." and [0040] "In the low accuracy state, as illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), the alienation between the pre-correction SOC and the actual SOC is relatively great because of the low accuracy state. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is higher than the actual SOC. At that time, as schematically illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), in the case of the low accuracy state, the control SOC is calculated by subtracting the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state from the pre-correction SOC. The second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state is greater than the first correction value Δ1 for high accuracy state. Thus, even in the low accuracy state, the alienation between the control SOC and the actual SOC can be reduced. It is noted that, in this example, the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is higher than the actual SOC; however, there may be a case where the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is lower than the actual SOC. In this case, the control SOC may be calculated by adding the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state to the pre-correction SOC.");
reduce an SOC buffer of the energy source by the SOC correction (see Oi at least Fig 4, [0036] "The correction value calculation part 143 calculates a correction value(s) for the pre-correction SOC calculated by the SOC calculation part 141..." and [0040] "In the low accuracy state, as illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), the alienation between the pre-correction SOC and the actual SOC is relatively great because of the low accuracy state. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is higher than the actual SOC. At that time, as schematically illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), in the case of the low accuracy state, the control SOC is calculated by subtracting the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state from the pre-correction SOC. The second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state is greater than the first correction value Δ1 for high accuracy state. Thus, even in the low accuracy state, the alienation between the control SOC and the actual SOC can be reduced. It is noted that, in this example, the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is higher than the actual SOC; however, there may be a case where the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is lower than the actual SOC. In this case, the control SOC may be calculated by adding the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state to the pre-correction SOC."); and
provide filtered SOC data of the energy source by increasing the measured SOC data by the SOC correction (see Oi at least [0040] "In the low accuracy state, as illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), the alienation between the pre-correction SOC and the actual SOC is relatively great because of the low accuracy state. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is higher than the actual SOC. At that time, as schematically illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), in the case of the low accuracy state, the control SOC is calculated by subtracting the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state from the pre-correction SOC. The second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state is greater than the first correction value Δ1 for high accuracy state. Thus, even in the low accuracy state, the alienation between the control SOC and the actual SOC can be reduced. It is noted that, in this example, the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is higher than the actual SOC; however, there may be a case where the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is lower than the actual SOC. In this case, the control SOC may be calculated by adding the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state to the pre-correction SOC.").
However, Oi does not explicitly disclose the following:
…processing circuitry…
…determine that a measured SOC decrease rate is greater than an expected SOC decrease rate by a predetermined SOC decrease rate threshold…
…determine an SOC difference based on the measured SOC decrease rate and the expected SOC decrease rate…
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…processing circuitry (see Yang at least Abs, [0007] "According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, an electrified vehicle includes a temperature sensor for measuring an ambient temperature of the vehicle, a battery management system (BMS) for monitoring a SOC of a battery mounted on the vehicle, and a controller that calculates a distance to empty (DTE) based on the ambient temperature and the SOC of the battery, adjusts a DTE reduction rate based on an actual discharging amount of the battery while traveling, and updates the DTE based on the adjusted DTE reduction rate." and [0042] "...The processor 151 may be implemented as at least one of processing devices such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor (DSP), a programmable logic device (PLD), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a central processing unit (CPU), a microcontroller, and/or a microprocessor...")…
…determine that a measured SOC decrease rate is greater than an expected SOC decrease rate by a predetermined SOC decrease rate threshold (see Yang at least Fig 2 and [0048]-[0050] "Specifically, the controller 150 may be configured to compare the actual discharging amount with a first reference discharging amount (=A×1.5). The controller 150 may determine a DTE reduction rate of when the actual discharging amount may be less than the first reference discharging amount as a first DTE reduction rate (e.g., 1 km reduction for each 1 km of the actual mileage). When the actual discharging amount is not less than the first reference discharging amount, the controller 150 may be configured to compare the actual discharging amount with a second reference discharging amount (=A×3). The controller 150 may be configured to determine a DTE reduction rate of when the actual discharging amount may be equal to or greater than the first reference discharging amount and less than the second reference discharging amount as a second DTE reduction rate (e.g., 2 km reduction for each 1 km of the actual mileage). When the actual discharging amount may be equal to or greater than the first reference discharging amount and may not be less than the second reference discharging amount, the controller 150 may be configured to compare the actual discharging amount with a third reference discharging amount (=A×4). The controller 150 may determine a DTE reduction rate of when the actual discharging amount may be equal to or greater than the second reference discharging amount and less than the third reference discharging amount as a third DTE reduction rate (e.g., 3 km reduction for each 1 km of the actual mileage). ")…
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle state of charge adjustments as disclosed by Oi with reduction rate comparisons such as taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accurately displaying an approximated state of charge (see Yang at least [0005]).
However, neither Oi nor Yang explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…determine an SOC difference based on the measured SOC decrease rate and the expected SOC decrease rate…
Stekkelpak, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…determine an SOC difference based on the measured SOC decrease rate and the expected SOC decrease rate (see Stekkelpak at least col 7 lines 62-67 "The change in the SOC of the battery between any two times can be computed as discussed above the above. For example, the expected rate of discharge of the battery between the second time t.sub.n+1 and a third, later time t.sub.n+2, and for expected activities A.sub.1 and A.sub.4 between the second time t.sub.n+1 and the third time t.sub.n+2, as shown in FIG. 2, can be provided as: ..." and col 8 lines 23-36 "...To that end, based on the current SOC of the battery and the expected activities of the user, the time when the SOC of the battery falls below the threshold can be estimated. Specifically, at each time (e.g., t.sub.n, t.sub.n+1, t.sub.n+2, . . . , t.sub.n+x), the SOC of the battery is determined (SOC.sub.tn, SOC.sub.tn+1, SOC.sub.tn+2, . . . , SOC.sub.tn+x). In some examples, the time t.sub.n can be a current time and the SOC can be directly measured. That is, SOC.sub.tn can be provided as an actual SOC as opposed to an estimated SOC. In this manner, SOC.sub.tn can provide a starting point for the prediction process. The SOC at each time period is compared to the threshold SOC. When the SOC at a future time is less than the SOC threshold, it is predicted when the battery will be discharged to an undesired level.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle state of charge adjustments as disclosed by Oi with a determined state of charge as taught by Stekkelpak with a reasonable expectation of success since different activities will result in different state of charge reduction rates and thus affect a final state of charge (see Stekkelpak at least col 2 lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 2, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine the expected SOC decrease rate based on energy drained from the energy source (see Yang at least [0055] "The controller 150 may calculate the DTE (the initial DTE) using the acquired current SOC (S110). The controller 150 may determine a discharging amount matching the current SOC, and calculate the DTE by multiplying the determined discharging amount by the fixed fuel efficiency...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle state of charge adjustments as disclosed by Oi with a decrease rate determination such as further taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
limit the SOC buffer at a predetermined maximum SOC buffer value (see Oi at least [0027] "The electric power generation voltage instruction part 16 instructs a predetermined constant value as the electric power generation voltage of the alternator 40, regardless of the vehicle travel state, etc., in a situation where the charge control is prevented by the fuel economy prevention part 18 as described hereinafter. The predetermined constant value may be set such that the battery 60 is brought to its fully charged state and kept in the fully charged state, for example. Alternatively, the electric power generation voltage instruction part 16 may instruct the electric power generation voltage of the alternator 40 such that the control SOC calculated by the battery capacity calculation part 14 become 100%.").
Regarding claim 12, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the SOC buffer is equal to a minimum SOC threshold, and the processing circuitry is further configured to:
prevent propulsion of the vehicle responsive to the measured SOC data being below the minimum SOC threshold (see Stekkelpak at least col 10 lines 37-48 "In the depicted example, the notification 402 includes such information as the time t.sub.DISCHARGE when the SOC is expected to be below the threshold SOC. In some examples, notifications can include concurrently occurring events during which the SOC is expected to be below the threshold SOC; suggestions to charge the mobile computing device; and/or suggestions to decrease expected activity of the mobile computing device. In some examples, the mobile computing device can proactively turn off certain processing modules to conserve battery power (e.g., turn off Bluetooth), or prevent certain activities (e.g., roaming) of the mobile computing device to conserve battery power.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Oi with restrictive responses such as further taught by Stekkelpak with a reasonable expectation of success so as to conserve what remaining power exists in a battery (see Stekkelpak at least col 10 lines 44-48).
Regarding claim 15, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach a battery pack, comprising one or more battery cells and the computer system of claim 1 configured to obtain measured SOC data of at least one of the one or more battery cells (see Yang at least [0007] "According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, an electrified vehicle includes a temperature sensor for measuring an ambient temperature of the vehicle, a battery management system (BMS) for monitoring a SOC of a battery mounted on the vehicle, and a controller that calculates a distance to empty (DTE) based on the ambient temperature and the SOC of the battery, adjusts a DTE reduction rate based on an actual discharging amount of the battery while traveling, and updates the DTE based on the adjusted DTE reduction rate." and [0040] "The BMS 130 may serve to maintain safety of a cell inside a battery (e.g., a high voltage battery) that supplies electric power required for a vehicle system, and reliability of a battery usage. The BMS 130 may monitor a voltage, a current, a temperature, and the like of the battery in real time using sensors. The BMS 130 may include a circuit for preventing overcharging or over-discharging during charging or discharging. The BMS 130 may calculate a state of charge (SOC) of the battery.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle configuration as disclosed by Oi with battery cell state of charge data such as further taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success so as to obtain an accurate representation of the vehicle battery (see Yang at least [0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach an energy management system, comprising one or more battery packs and the computer system of claim 1 configured to obtain measured SOC data of at least one of the one or more battery packs (see Oi at least [0019]-[0020] "FIG. 1 is a diagram for illustrating a configuration of a power supply system of a vehicle according an embodiment. The embodiment is suited for the vehicle that has only an engine installed as a power source (i.e., other than hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles), as illustrated in FIG. 1. In a configuration illustrated in FIG. 1, an alternator 40 is mechanically connected to an engine 42. The alternator 40 is a generator that generates electricity based on power of the engine 42. The electric power generated by the alternator 40 is utilized for charging a battery 60 and driving vehicle electric loads 50... FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a system configuration of a control system of a vehicle according an embodiment.").
Regarding claim 17, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach a vehicle comprising one or more energy sources and the computer system of claim 1 configured to obtain measured SOC data of at least one of the one or more energy sources (see Oi at least [0019]-[0020] "FIG. 1 is a diagram for illustrating a configuration of a power supply system of a vehicle according an embodiment. The embodiment is suited for the vehicle that has only an engine installed as a power source (i.e., other than hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles), as illustrated in FIG. 1. In a configuration illustrated in FIG. 1, an alternator 40 is mechanically connected to an engine 42. The alternator 40 is a generator that generates electricity based on power of the engine 42. The electric power generated by the alternator 40 is utilized for charging a battery 60 and driving vehicle electric loads 50...").
Regarding claim 18, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as presented in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer implemented method of claim 18 (see Yang at least [0031] "Further, the control logic of the present disclosure may be embodied as non-transitory computer readable media on a computer readable medium containing executable program instructions executed by a processor, controller or the like. Examples of computer readable media include, but are not limited to, rom, ram, compact disc (CD)-ROMs, magnetic tapes, floppy disks, flash drives, smart cards and optical data storage devices. The computer readable medium can also be distributed in network coupled computer systems so that the computer readable media is stored and executed in a distributed fashion, e.g., by a telematics server or a controller area network (CAN).").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by Oi with instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of processing data (see Yang at least [0031]).
Claims 3-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yee et al. (US-2011/0246013; hereinafter Yee; already of record).
Regarding claim 3, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
…
increase the SOC buffer by an SOC increase value (see Oi at least Fig 4(B) and [0039]-[0040] "In the low accuracy state, as illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), the alienation between the pre-correction SOC and the actual SOC is relatively great because of the low accuracy state. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is higher than the actual SOC. At that time, as schematically illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), in the case of the low accuracy state, the control SOC is calculated by subtracting the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state from the pre-correction SOC. The second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state is greater than the first correction value Δ1 for high accuracy state. Thus, even in the low accuracy state, the alienation between the control SOC and the actual SOC can be reduced. It is noted that, in this example, the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is higher than the actual SOC; however, there may be a case where the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is lower than the actual SOC. In this case, the control SOC may be calculated by adding the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state to the pre-correction SOC."); and
provide filtered SOC data of the energy source by decreasing the measured SOC data by the SOC increase value (see Oi at least Fig 4(B) and [0040] "In the low accuracy state, as illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), the alienation between the pre-correction SOC and the actual SOC is relatively great because of the low accuracy state. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is higher than the actual SOC. At that time, as schematically illustrated in FIG. 4 (B), in the case of the low accuracy state, the control SOC is calculated by subtracting the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state from the pre-correction SOC. The second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state is greater than the first correction value Δ1 for high accuracy state. Thus, even in the low accuracy state, the alienation between the control SOC and the actual SOC can be reduced. It is noted that, in this example, the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is higher than the actual SOC; however, there may be a case where the pre-correction SOC is calculated such that it is lower than the actual SOC. In this case, the control SOC may be calculated by adding the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state to the pre-correction SOC.").
However, while both Oi and Yang teach a threshold to compare against a measured state of charge, neither Oi nor Yang nor Stekkelpak explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…determine that the measured SOC data is below a predetermined maximum SOC threshold and above an intermediate SOC threshold…
Yee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…determine that the measured SOC data is below a predetermined maximum SOC threshold and above an intermediate SOC threshold (see Yee at least [0023] "As another aspect, the system controller can provide a fuel cell mode control signal to maintain the fuel cell in the Startup Mode if the state of charge of the battery reaches a third threshold that is less than the first threshold and greater than the second threshold, the internal combustion engine is running and the alternator is delivering power to the energy storage device, and wherein the electrical loads comprise hotel loads at a first level with the system controller causing the disconnect of at least selected hotel loads to reduce the magnitude of the electrical loads from the first level.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the state of charge determination as disclosed by Oi with multiple thresholds such as taught by Yee with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of refined controls and monitoring of vehicle battery throughout a duration (see Yee at least [0015]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak and Yee teach the computer system of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine the SOC increase value as a function of the measured SOC data (see Oi at least [0036] "...For example, the second correction value Δ2 for low accuracy state is a value according to a difference D between a first correction value α1 of the SOC calculated based on the behavior of the charge current in the charge late state during the refresh charging, and a second correction value α2 of the SOC calculated based on the voltage of the battery 60 at the same timing as the first correction value α1...").
Regarding claim 5, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak and Yee teach the computer system of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine the SOC increase value at a predetermined fixed value (see Oi at least [0036] "...For example, the first correction value Δ1 for high accuracy state may be a constant value…").
Regarding claim 6, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak and Yee teach similar material to that of claim 3 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons (Oi disclosing the adjustment of buffer value and measured SOC data; Yee teaching multiple thresholds).
Regarding claim 7, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak and Yee teach similar material to that of claim 4 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 8, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak and Yee teach similar material to that of claim 5 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 11, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine that the SOC difference is greater than the SOC buffer (see Oi at least Fig 4(B), [0036], and [0040]; the difference between pre-correction SOC and actual SOC is larger than the first correction value);
…
prevent propulsion of the vehicle responsive to the measured SOC data being below the minimum SOC threshold (see Stekkelpak at least col 10 lines 37-48 "In the depicted example, the notification 402 includes such information as the time t.sub.DISCHARGE when the SOC is expected to be below the threshold SOC. In some examples, notifications can include concurrently occurring events during which the SOC is expected to be below the threshold SOC; suggestions to charge the mobile computing device; and/or suggestions to decrease expected activity of the mobile computing device. In some examples, the mobile computing device can proactively turn off certain processing modules to conserve battery power (e.g., turn off Bluetooth), or prevent certain activities (e.g., roaming) of the mobile computing device to conserve battery power.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Oi with restrictive responses such as further taught by Stekkelpak with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 12.
While Oi discloses a predetermined SOC threshold, as well as the adjustment of a SOC via a buffer, neither Oi nor Yang nor Stekkelpak explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…reduce a minimum SOC threshold by the SOC correction…
Yee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…reduce a minimum SOC threshold by the SOC correction (see Yee at least [0099] “Although examples of battery state of charge levels are described with reference to as thresholds, it should be understood that these thresholds can be varied, for example based on ambient temperature (where more power is required to start an engine from a cold start under cold ambient temperature conditions, but less power is required to cool a fuel cell under cold ambient conditions). In addition, the thresholds can be varied based on the characteristics of the energy storage device. Thus, if it is required that the energy storage device has enough power to start the engine under worst case scenarios (e.g., cold engine under extremely cold ambient conditions), but the energy storage device comprises multiple battery packs, the threshold can be at a lower level than if only a single battery stack is included in the vehicle. Also, the number of batteries in the battery pack and the type of batteries can also affect the threshold levels. The term threshold is to be broadly construed. Thus, if an action is to be taken when a threshold is reached, accomplishing this action at a level that varies with conditions meets this requirement. Also, the term less than a threshold is met by an action taking place at a level equal to a first level as in this case the threshold can be construed to mean the level immediately above the first level where the action took place and thus the action took place at a level that is less than a threshold. Similarly, the term greater than a threshold is met by an action taking place at a level equal to a threshold as in this case the threshold can be construed to mean the level immediately below the level at which the action took place.”)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the state of charge determination as disclosed by Oi with adjustable thresholds such as taught by Yee with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of refined controls and monitoring of vehicle battery throughout a duration (see Yee at least [0015]-[0017]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bang (US-2022/0121436; already of record).
Regarding claim 13, Oi in view of Yang and Stekkelpak teach the computer system of claim 1. However, neither Oi nor Yang nor Stekkelpak explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…determine that a measured SOC decrease rate is greater than the expected SOC decrease rate by comparing the measured SOC data to previous measured SOC data.
Bang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…determine that a measured SOC decrease rate is greater than the expected SOC decrease rate by comparing the measured SOC data to previous measured SOC data (see Bang at least [0065] "Also, the optimal pattern suggesting device 150 may derive an actual SOC change rate by receiving changes in SOC values respectively measured before and after the update of each controller belonging to the corresponding update event from the CCU 200...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SOC decrease rate determination as taught by Oi in view of Yang with a historical comparison such as taught by Bang with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accurately tracking a vehicle’s state of charge over a period of time (see Bang at least [0023]-[0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (as well as being rejected via 101), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 as currently presented states “…determine the SOC decrease value such that the SOC buffer is substantially zero when the measured SOC data is at the minimum SOC threshold.”
While Oi teaches the use of a first correction value or a second correction value according to an accuracy state, the reference does not detail the occurrence of setting a buffer to zero.
Yang teaches the monitoring of a vehicle’s “Distance To Empty” (interpreted similarly to a “State of Charge”) according to a reduction rate, the vehicle updating information for an occupant according to the reduction rate’s comparison to a variety of thresholds. The updates are similar to a buffer, which adjust the predicted rate, however the reference does not detail the occurrence of setting a buffer to zero.
Stekkelpak teaches the prediction of a state of charge at a time in the future, based on the type of activities impacting a battery, however the reference does not detail the adjustment of state of charge by way of a buffer or the occurrence of setting a buffer to zero.
Yee teaches various state of charge threshold values; these thresholds are associated with different events which occur for a vehicle, such as the requirement for a specific amount of charge to start an engine and cool a fuel cell, however the reference does not detail the adjustment of state of charge by way of a buffer or the occurrence of setting a buffer to zero.
Li et al. (US-2024/0399923) teaches the adjustment of a gain based on a battery’s state of charge, a control module not making adjustments when the battery’s state of charge is below of specific limit. However, depending on the teachings of Li for detailing the concept of setting a buffer to zero would also require the implementation of Yee’s teachings of state of charge thresholds, and be directed to improper hindsight reasoning.
Claim 14 as currently presented recites information similar to that in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Underhill et al. (US-2014/0324370) teaches battery monitoring that considers minimum SOC thresholds and maximum SOC thresholds.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights