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 Objections
Claims 5, 6, and 17 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. In regards to claims 5 and 17, the claims recite “controlling the power consumption of the load to increase by an amount of the power consumption of the load controlled to decrease to distribute the high power peak”. No single prior art has been found to anticipate this limitation, nor any combination of references to render this limitation obvious, when viewed in the context of the remaining limitations of the claims and the limitations to which the claims depend. As such, these claims would be found to be allowable if amended into independent form incorporating intervening limitations. Dependent claim 6 depends upon dependent claim 5 and therefore is objected to at least by virtue of its dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-9, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wente (US 20250340361).
In regards to claim 7, Wente teaches a battery protection method comprising: (Fig 6.)
monitoring a state of a vehicle; ([0052], [0053] vehicle condition is monitored.)
determining, using a result of monitoring the state of the vehicle, whether to control a regenerative braking amount; ([0066], [0068], [0071] regenerative braking is performed to charge batteries by applying torque opposing rotation of the wheels of the vehicle. This is an amount of regenerative braking controlled and applied, at least when transitioning between an idle mode, assist mode, and regenerative mode, where the vehicle is transitioned to the regenerative mode when a low power consumption condition is met.)
controlling the regenerative braking amount to increase. ([0066], [0068], [0071] vehicle transitions between idle mode, assist mode, and regenerative mode, where the battery drives a motor in the assist mode to provide power to drive the vehicle, the battery is charged in the regenerative mode by regenerative braking, and the battery neither provides nor receives power in the idle mode. At least when the mode is controlled to be transitioned to the regenerative mode from the assist more or the idle mode, a regenerative braking amount is controlled to increase.)
In regards to claim 8, Wente teaches the battery protection method of claim 7, wherein the state of the vehicle includes at least one of power of a battery, voltage of the battery, current of the battery, rated voltage of the battery, state of charge (SoC) of the battery, state of health (SoH) of the battery, power consumption of a load, output of the load, voltage of the load, current of the load, rated voltage of the load, speed of the vehicle, acceleration of the vehicle, deceleration of the vehicle, a degree of depression of an accelerator pedal, a degree of depression of a brake pedal, fluctuation of a ripple current of the battery, outside temperature, a difference between battery temperature and an outside temperature, a regenerative braking amount, or a performance limit point of the battery. ([0062] state of charge of energy storage device is determined using voltage information, where energy storage device is battery. [0066], [0068], [0071] regenerative braking is applied to charge the battery, which includes determining the amount of regenerative braking performed.)
In regards to claim 9, Wente teaches the battery protection method of claim 8, wherein determining whether the regenerative braking amount needs to be controlled comprises:
determining that the regenerative braking amount needs to be controlled in response to a determination that the battery needs to be protected. ([0063], [0064] based on state of charge being fully charged or above a threshold state of charge, the vehicle is controlled to transition to an idle mode, when below the threshold the vehicle transitions to regenerative mode. This is particularly done to avoid well known overcharging phenomenon which is a determination that the battery needs to be protected. Necessarily by determining that the battery is at a state of charge above a threshold of fully charged, depending on the configuration, a determination is made that the battery must be protected.)
In regards to claim 13, Wente teaches the battery protection method of claim 9, wherein determining whether the regenerative braking amount needs to be controlled comprises:
determining that the battery needs to be protected in a sudden braking section. ([0063], [0064] based on state of charge being fully charged or above a threshold state of charge, the vehicle is controlled to transition to an idle mode, when below the threshold the vehicle transitions to regenerative mode. This is particularly done to avoid well known overcharging phenomenon which is a determination that the battery needs to be protected. Necessarily by determining that the battery is at a state of charge above a threshold of fully charged, depending on the configuration, a determination is made that the battery must be protected. This occurs through all braking, including sudden braking, slower braking, and all other categories of braking.)
In regards to claim 15, Wente teaches the battery protection method of claim 9, wherein controlling the regenerative braking amount to increase comprises:
increasing regenerative braking force. ([0066], [0068], [0071] vehicle transitions between idle mode, assist mode, and regenerative mode, where the battery drives a motor in the assist mode to provide power to drive the vehicle, the battery is charged in the regenerative mode by regenerative braking, and the battery neither provides nor receives power in the idle mode. At least when the mode is controlled to be transitioned to the regenerative mode from the assist more or the idle mode, a regenerative braking force is controlled to increase from zero to some value.)
In regards to claim 18, Wente teaches an apparatus comprising: (Figs 1-5, 7, 8.)
at least one memory storing instructions; ([0054] memory stores instructions executed by processor.) and
at least one processor, ([0054] processor performs instructions stored within memory.)
wherein the at least one processor, by executing the instructions, is configured to: ([0054] processor performs operations stored within memory.)
monitor a state of a vehicle, ([0052], [0053] vehicle condition is monitored.)
determine, using a result of monitoring the state of the vehicle, whether to control a regenerative braking amount, ([0066], [0068], [0071] regenerative braking is performed to charge batteries by applying torque opposing rotation of the wheels of the vehicle. This is an amount of regenerative braking controlled and applied, at least when transitioning between an idle mode, assist mode, and regenerative mode, where the vehicle is transitioned to the regenerative mode when a low power consumption condition is met.) and
control the regenerative braking amount to increase, ([0066], [0068], [0071] vehicle transitions between idle mode, assist mode, and regenerative mode, where the battery drives a motor in the assist mode to provide power to drive the vehicle, the battery is charged in the regenerative mode by regenerative braking, and the battery neither provides nor receives power in the idle mode. At least when the mode is controlled to be transitioned to the regenerative mode from the assist more or the idle mode, a regenerative braking amount is controlled to increase.)
wherein the state of the vehicle includes at least one of power of a battery, voltage of the battery, current of the battery, rated voltage of the battery, state of charge (SoC) of the battery, state of health (SoH) of the battery, power consumption of a load, output of the load, voltage of the load, current of the load, rated voltage of the load, speed of the vehicle, acceleration of the vehicle, deceleration of the vehicle, a degree of depression of an accelerator pedal, a degree of depression of a brake pedal, fluctuation of a ripple current of the battery, outside temperature, a difference between battery temperature and an outside temperature, a regenerative braking amount, or a performance limit point of the battery. ([0062] state of charge of energy storage device is determined using voltage information, where energy storage device is battery. [0066], [0068], [0071] regenerative braking is applied to charge the battery, which includes determining the amount of regenerative braking performed.)
In regards to claim 19, Wente teaches the apparatus of claim 18.
Claim 19 recites an apparatus having substantially the same features of claim 9 above, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20150032276), in view of Wente and Kudo (US 20230006442).
In regards to claim 1, Chang teaches a battery protection method comprising: (Figs 4, 5, 11-13, [0006], [0007].)
controlling power consumption of a load so that the high power peak is distributed; (Figs 4, 5, [0060], [0069] discharging is scheduled of electricity storage to achieve peak shaving and load leveling, which by definition controls power consumption of a load to distribute a high power peak.) and
compensating for the power consumption of the load. ([0060] load leveling and peak shaving is performed by assessing regenerative power predicted available, which is supplied to compensate for power consumption of the load.)
Chang does not teach:
monitoring a state of a vehicle;
determining, using a result of monitoring the state of the vehicle, that a high power peak has occurred in response to power of a battery being equal to or greater than a first threshold value;
However, Wente teaches performing peak shaving and load balancing for a vehicle based upon determination of the operating condition of the vehicle, which is a monitored state of the vehicle, where a peak is determined by assessing the power demand against thresholds ([0030], [0052], [0053], [0058], [0059])
Further, Kudo teaches peak shaving of a battery performed when power consumption exceeds a threshold ([0061]), which is a determination that a peak occurs when equal to or above the threshold power of a battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the electricity storage method of Chang, by incorporating the teachings of Wente and Kudo, such that a vehicle state is particularly monitored and used along with the power information of Chang, to determine peaks and further perform peak shaving and load balancing when a battery power is equal to or above a threshold.
The motivation to perform peak shaving operation with a vehicle is that, as acknowledged by Wente, this improves overall system efficiency by improving load balancing ([0030]). The motivation to determine power peaking above a threshold is that, as acknowledged by Kudo, this allows for reducing maximum power ([0061]), which one of ordinary skill would have recognized improves power usage and reduces costs.
In regards to claim 2, Chang, as modified by Wente and Kudo, teaches the battery protection method of claim 1, wherein the state of the vehicle includes at least one of power of the battery, voltage of the battery, current of the battery, rated voltage of the battery, state of charge (SoC) of the battery, state of health (SoH) of the battery, power consumption of the load, output of the load, voltage of the load, current of the load, rated voltage of the load, speed of the vehicle, acceleration of the vehicle, deceleration of the vehicle, a degree of depression of an accelerator pedal, a degree of depression of a brake pedal, fluctuation of a ripple current of the battery, outside temperature, a difference between battery temperature and an outside temperature, a regenerative braking amount, or a performance limit point of the battery. ([0062] at least state of charge and amount of battery power are monitored.)
In regards to claim 3, Chang, as modified by Wente and Kudo, teaches the battery protection method of claim 2, wherein controlling the power consumption of the load comprises:
controlling the power consumption of the load to decrease. (Fig 4, [0060], [0069] discharged power, which is the power consumed, is controlled to decrease at a peak when peak shaving and load leveling is performed.)
In regards to claim 4, Chang, as modified by Wente and Kudo, teaches the battery protection method of claim 3, wherein compensating for the power consumption of the load comprises:
controlling the power consumption of the load to increase. (Fig 4, [0060], [0069] discharged power, which is the power consumed, is controlled to increase at a valley when peak shaving and load leveling is performed.)
In regards to claim 16, Chang teaches an apparatus comprising: (Figs 1-3.)
at least one memory storing instructions; ([0060] controller performs operations, including digital operations, which must be stored in memory of some kind.) and
at least one processor, ([0060] controller performs operations, which acts as or includes processor.)
wherein the at least one processor, by executing the instructions, is configured to: ([0060] controller performs operations.)
control power consumption of a load so that the high power peak is distributed, (Figs 4, 5, [0060], [0069] discharging is scheduled of electricity storage to achieve peak shaving and load leveling, which by definition controls power consumption of a load to distribute a high power peak.) and
compensate for power consumption of the load, ([0060] load leveling and peak shaving is performed by assessing regenerative power predicted available, which is supplied to compensate for power consumption of the load.)
wherein the state includes at least one of power of the battery, voltage of the battery, current of the battery, rated voltage of the battery, state of charge (SoC) of the battery, state of health (SoH) of the battery, power consumption of the load, output of the load, voltage of the load, current of the load, rated voltage of the load, speed of the vehicle, acceleration of the vehicle, deceleration of the vehicle, a degree of depression of an accelerator pedal, a degree of depression of a brake pedal, fluctuation of a ripple current of the battery, outside temperature, a difference between battery temperature and an outside temperature, a regenerative braking amount, or a performance limit point of the battery. ([0062] at least state of charge and amount of battery power are monitored.)
Chang does not teach:
monitor a state of a vehicle,
determine, using a result of monitoring the state of the vehicle, that a high power peak has occurred when power of a battery is equal to or greater than a first threshold value,
wherein the state of the vehicle includes
However, Wente teaches performing peak shaving and load balancing for a vehicle based upon determination of the operating condition of the vehicle, which is a monitored state of the vehicle, where a peak is determined by assessing the power demand against thresholds ([0030], [0052], [0053], [0058], [0059])
Further, Kudo teaches peak shaving of a battery performed when power consumption exceeds a threshold ([0061]), which is a determination that a peak occurs when equal to or above the threshold power of a battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the electricity storage system of Chang, by incorporating the teachings of Wente and Kudo, such that a vehicle state is particularly monitored and used along with the power information of Chang, to determine peaks and further perform peak shaving and load balancing when a battery power is equal to or above a threshold, which is further included in the monitored vehicle state.
The motivation to perform peak shaving operation with a vehicle is that, as acknowledged by Wente, this improves overall system efficiency by improving load balancing ([0030]). The motivation to determine power peaking above a threshold is that, as acknowledged by Kudo, this allows for reducing maximum power ([0061]), which one of ordinary skill would have recognized improves power usage and reduces costs.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wente in view of Gentile (US 20160094055).
In regards to claim 10, Wente teaches the battery protection method of claim 9, wherein determining whether the regenerative braking amount needs to be controlled comprises:
Wente does not teach:
determining that the battery needs to be protected in response to a determination that a decrease in the SoC of the battery needs to be delayed.
However, Gentile teaches battery architecture for a vehicle that protects from over discharge by delaying the discharge of particular battery cells (Claim 9.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the battery control method of Wente, by incorporating the teachings of Gentile, such that battery protection is performed at least by determining an over discharge situation and the over discharge is delayed.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Gentile, this allows for preventing over discharge of the battery (Claim 9) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized improves the health of the battery.
In regards to claim 20, Wente teaches the apparatus of claim 19.
Claim 20 recites an apparatus having substantially the same features of claim 10 above, therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wente in view of Rabii et al. (US 20200348744).
In regards to claim 11, Wente teaches the battery protection method of claim 9 wherein determining whether the regenerative braking amount needs to be controlled comprises:
Wente, does not teach:
determining that the battery needs to be protected in response to a determination that the SoH of the battery needs to be improved.
However, Rabii teaches determining that a battery state of health needs to be protected and improved and adjusting functions powered by the battery to do so ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the battery control method of Wente, by incorporating the teachings of Rabii, such that battery state of health is monitored, protected, and improved as required.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Rabii, this improves the state of health of the battery ([0071]), which improves overall performance of the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wente in view of Okumura (US 20070018608).
In regards to claim 12, Wente teaches the battery protection method of claim 9, wherein determining whether the regenerative braking amount needs to be controlled comprises:
Wente does not teach:
determining that the battery needs to be protected in response to the speed of the vehicle being maintained within a preset range for a preset time.
However, Okumura teaches determining a vehicle speed is above a threshold for a threshold duration, and based on these determinations, limiting amount of electric energy to be charged in regeneration ([0078]), which is a determination that the battery needs to be protected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the battery control method of Wente, by incorporating the teachings of Okumura, such that vehicle speed is determined to be above a threshold for a threshold duration and the amount of electric energy to be charged in regeneration is limited based on these determinations.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Okumura, this allows for prevention of deterioration of the battery ([0078]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wente in view of Chen et al. (US 20250187392).
In regards to claim 14, Wente teaches the battery protection method of claim 9, wherein determining whether the regenerative braking amount needs to be controlled comprises:
Wente does not teach:
determining that the battery needs to be protected in response to the outside temperature being equal to or higher than the battery temperature by an amount equal to or greater than a preset value.
However, Chen teaches determining a difference between the outside temperature and battery temperature and assessing the difference against a threshold, when above the threshold further actions are taken to adjust battery temperature ([0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the battery control method of Wente, by incorporating the teachings of Chen, such that the difference between the outside temperature and battery temperature is assessed against a threshold, which is a determination that the outside temperature is equal to or higher than a battery temperature by a preset value, and further protective actions are taken based upon this determination.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Chen, this allows for improving battery performance ([0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Husberg et al. (US 20240198808) teaches regenerative braking operations and peak shaving operations for a vehicle.
Ko (US 20250202037) teaches adjusting cooling for a battery based on a difference between battery temperature and air temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights