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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to Application 19/177,634 filed on 04/14/2025. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024070419, filed on 04/24/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/14/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a calculation unit, a reaction heat derivation unit, a reaction heat per unit, a resistance value derivation unit in claims 1-6 and 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatsumi et al., JP2013027065A, in view of Seong Jun Yun, US 20220283232A1 and in view of Takao Yamamoto, US 20070120537A1, hereinafter referred to as Hatsumi, Yun and Yamamoto, respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Hatsumi discloses a control device that controls a vehicle including a drive wheel, a motor-generator that performs regeneration by braking the drive wheel and a battery supplied with regenerative electric power generated by the regeneration (vehicle 10 includes drive wheels 12L and 12R mechanically connected to motor-generator 16; during braking, motor-generator 16 generates regenerative electric power using torque of the drive wheels and supplies the generated power to battery 18 through inverter 17 – See at least ¶15-20), the control device comprising:
a calculation unit that calculates a current value (ECU 19 includes a CPU configured to perform calculations and determines a maximum regenerative current value capable of flowing under corresponding battery conditions based on battery voltage, battery temperature and/or state of charge – See at least ¶18 and 21-29); and
a control unit that controls the motor-generator based on the calculated current value (ECU 19 controls the regenerative torque of motor generator 16 through inverter 17 so as not to exceed the calculated regenerative current value – See at least ¶21 and 30).
Hatsumi fails to disclose a calculation unit that calculates a current value under which a heat absorption amount of the battery is equal to or greater than a heat generation amount during the regeneration, based on a resistance value of the battery and a reaction heat per unit current value generated by an electrochemical reaction of the battery.
However, Yun teaches a calculation unit that calculates a current value under which a heat absorption amount of the battery is equal to or greater than a heat generation amount during the regeneration, based on a resistance value of the battery (calculating an optimum battery current value based on a thermal balance between an amount of heat that may be absorbed before the battery reaches a threshold temperature, an amount of heat generated during charging or discharging, and an amount of cooling heat – See at least ¶47-52 and 56-70. Further, deriving optimum RMS current value as a function of battery temperature, battery resistance and target time such that the battery does not reach the threshold temperature – See at least ¶73-75 and 90).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hatsumi and include the feature of a current value under which a heat absorption amount of the battery is equal to or greater than a heat generation amount during the regeneration, based on a resistance value of the battery, as taught by Yun, to provide an apparatus and method for calculating battery power capable of maintaining a battery at an appropriate temperature during the target time and efficiently performing energy management of a vehicle by calculating an optimum power value usable for the battery without reaching the limit temperature during the target time (See at least ¶6 of Yun).
The combination of Hatsumi and Yun fail to disclose a calculation unit that calculates a current value under which a heat absorption amount of the battery is equal to or greater than a heat generation amount during the regeneration, based on a resistance value of the battery and a reaction heat per unit current value generated by an electrochemical reaction of the battery.
However, Yamamoto teaches a calculation unit that calculates a current value based on a reaction heat per unit current value generated by an electrochemical reaction of the battery (calculating chemical reaction heat based on battery current and expresses the chemical reaction as proportional to current, wherein ΔH/(nF) corresponds to a reaction heat per unit current value generated by an electrochemical reaction of the battery – See at least ¶54, 94-95 and 98-104).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hatsumi and Yun and include the feature of a calculation unit that calculates a current value based on a reaction heat per unit current value generated by an electrochemical reaction of the battery, as taught by Yamamoto, to estimate a temperature of a rechargeable battery that enables an accurate battery temperature to be obtained through calculation (See at least ¶10 of Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 4, Hatsumi fails to disclose a resistance value derivation unit that derives the resistance value of the battery, wherein the resistance value derivation unit derives the resistance value of the battery based on a current remaining charge amount of the battery with reference to a map in which a remaining charge amount of the battery and a resistance value under the remaining charge amount are associated with each other.
However, Yun teaches a resistance value derivation unit that derives the resistance value of the battery, wherein the resistance value derivation unit derives the resistance value of the battery based on a current remaining charge amount of the battery with reference to a map in which a remaining charge amount of the battery and a resistance value under the remaining charge amount are associated with each other (a resistance value derivation that derives a resistance value of the battery based on a current remaining charge amount with reference to stored values associating the battery state of charge with battery resistance – See at least ¶49-50, 69 and 80-82).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hatsumi and include the feature of a resistance value derivation unit that derives the resistance value of the battery, wherein the resistance value derivation unit derives the resistance value of the battery based on a current remaining charge amount of the battery with reference to a map in which a remaining charge amount of the battery and a resistance value under the remaining charge amount are associated with each other, as taught by Yun, to provide an apparatus and method for calculating battery power capable of maintaining a battery at an appropriate temperature during the target time and efficiently performing energy management of a vehicle by calculating an optimum power value usable for the battery without reaching the limit temperature during the target time (See at least ¶6 of Yun).
Regarding claim 5, Hatsumi fails to disclose wherein the resistance value derivation unit derives the resistance value of the battery further based on a temperature of the battery.
However, Yun teaches wherein the resistance value derivation unit derives the resistance value of the battery further based on a temperature of the battery (deriving the resistance value of the battery based on a temperature of the battery by correcting the battery resistance according to the current battery temperature – See at least ¶48-50, 67-69 and 91).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hatsumi and include the feature of wherein the resistance value derivation unit derives the resistance value of the battery further based on a temperature of the battery, as taught by Yun, to provide an apparatus and method for calculating battery power capable of maintaining a battery at an appropriate temperature during the target time and efficiently performing energy management of a vehicle by calculating an optimum power value usable for the battery without reaching the limit temperature during the target time (See at least ¶6 of Yun).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatsumi et al., JP2013027065A, in view of Seong Jun Yun, US 20220283232A1, in view of Takao Yamamoto, US 20070120537A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanovic et al., US 20220344734A1, hereinafter referred to as Hatsumi, Yun, Yamamoto and Tanovic, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hatsumi, Yun and Yamamoto fail to disclose a reaction heat derivation unit that derives the reaction heat, wherein the reaction heat derivation unit derives the reaction heat per unit current value based on a remaining charge amount of the battery.
However, Tanovic teaches a reaction heat derivation unit that derives the reaction heat, wherein the reaction heat derivation unit derives the reaction heat per unit current value based on a remaining charge amount of the battery (Entropy change associated with the electrochemical reaction of the battery varies according to the state of charge (SOC), may be modeled as a polynomial function of SOC, and may be stored in a lookup table for different SOC ranges, wherein the corresponding entropy heating term is proportional to battery current – See at least ¶63, 66-67 and 71).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hatsumi, Yun and Yamamoto and include the feature of a reaction heat derivation unit that derives the reaction heat, wherein the reaction heat derivation unit derives the reaction heat per unit current value based on a remaining charge amount of the battery, as taught by Tanovic, to more accurately account for changes in electrochemical reaction heat as the remaining change amount for the battery change.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hatsumi, Yun and Yamamoto fail to disclose wherein the reaction heat derivation unit derives the reaction heat per unit current value further based on a temperature of the battery.
However, Tanovic teaches wherein the reaction heat derivation unit derives the reaction heat per unit current value further based on a temperature of the battery (deriving the reaction heat per unit current value based on battery temperature by developing the entropy change model through calibration at various temperatures and storing parameter values for different ranges of SOC and battery temperature – See at least ¶66-67).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hatsumi, Yun and Yamamoto and include the feature of wherein the reaction heat derivation unit derives the reaction heat per unit current value further based on a temperature of the battery, as taught by Tanovic, to more accurately account for changes in electrochemical reaction heat as the remaining change amount for the battery change.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatsumi et al., JP2013027065A, in view of Seong Jun Yun, US 20220283232A1, in view of Takao Yamamoto, US 20070120537A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bergqvist et al., US 20130314054A1, hereinafter referred to as Hatsumi, Yun, Yamamoto and Bergqvist, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hatsumi, Yun and Yamamoto fail to disclose in response to a current temperature of the battery being equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature near an upper limit temperature, the calculation unit multiplies, by a predetermined correction coefficient, the current value under which the heat absorption amount of the battery is equal to or greater than the heat generation amount during the regeneration, and the control unit controls the motor-generator based on the current value multiplied by the predetermined correction coefficient.
However, Bergqvist teaches in response to a current temperature of the battery being equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature near an upper limit temperature, the calculation unit multiplies, by a predetermined correction coefficient, the current value under which the heat absorption amount of the battery is equal to or greater than the heat generation amount during the regeneration, and the control unit controls the motor-generator based on the current value multiplied by the predetermined correction coefficient (calculating a charging current value by multiplying a current value by a predetermined temperature correction factor, wherein the correction factor reduces the current when battery temperature exceeds predetermined temperatures near the maximum charging temperature limit and controlling charging using the resulting corrected current value – See at least ¶28-30).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hatsumi, Yun and Yamamoto and include the feature of in response to a current temperature of the battery being equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature near an upper limit temperature, the calculation unit multiplies, by a predetermined correction coefficient, the current value under which the heat absorption amount of the battery is equal to or greater than the heat generation amount during the regeneration, and the control unit controls the motor-generator based on the current value multiplied by the predetermined correction coefficient, as taught by Bergqvist, in order to reduce battery heating and prevent the battery from exceeding its permissible temperature.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatsumi et al., JP2013027065A, in view of Seong Jun Yun, US 20220283232A1, in view of Takao Yamamoto, US 20070120537A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Joo Gon Kim, US 20110074204A1, hereinafter referred to as Hatsumi, Yun, Yamamoto and Kim, respectively.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hatsumi, Yun and Yamamoto fail to disclose wherein the vehicle further includes a brake device that brakes the drive wheel, and the control unit is further configured to control the brake device, and causes the brake device to generate a remainder of a required braking force excluding the regeneration of the motor-generator.
However, Kim teaches wherein the vehicle further includes a brake device that brakes the drive wheel, and the control unit is further configured to control the brake device, and causes the brake device to generate a remainder of a required braking force excluding the regeneration of the motor-generator (an electro-mechanical braking actuator controlled by an ECU, wherein the central ECU calculates a differential value between a driver required braking force and the regenerative braking force and controls the braking actuator to generate braking force according to the differential value – See at least ¶50 and 78-80).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hatsumi, Yun and Yamamoto and include the feature of wherein the vehicle further includes a brake device that brakes the drive wheel, and the control unit is further configured to control the brake device, and causes the brake device to generate a remainder of a required braking force excluding the regeneration of the motor-generator, as taught by Kim, to satisfy the requested total braking force while maintaining coordinated regenerative and friction braking.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatsumi et al., JP2013027065A, in view of Seong Jun Yun, US 20220283232A1, in view of Takao Yamamoto, US 20070120537A1, in view of Joo Gon Kim, US 20110074204A1, as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Dale Crombez, US 20110160971A1, hereinafter referred to as Hatsumi, Yun, Yamamoto, Kim and Crombez, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hatsumi, Yun, Yamamoto and Kim fail to disclose wherein the brake device includes a brake-by-wire system.
However, Crombez teaches wherein the brake device includes a brake-by-wire system (an electro-hydraulic brake-by-wire system comprising a brake pedal – See at least ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hatsumi, Yun, Yamamoto and Kim and include the feature of wherein the brake device includes a brake-by-wire system, as taught by Crombez, to facilitate coordinated control between regenerative braking and the vehicles friction braking.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatsumi et al., JP2013027065A, in view of Seong Jun Yun, US 20220283232A1, in view of Takao Yamamoto, US 20070120537A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Thomas Dougherty, US 20040212367A1 , hereinafter referred to as Hatsumi, Yun, Yamamoto and Dougherty, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hatsumi, Yun and Yamamoto fail to disclose a resistance value derivation unit that derives the resistance value of the battery, wherein the resistance value derivation unit derives the resistance value of the battery based on a voltage change amount and a current change amount of the battery.
However, Dougherty teaches a resistance value derivation unit that derives the resistance value of the battery, wherein the resistance value derivation unit derives the resistance value of the battery based on a voltage change amount and a current change amount of the battery (deriving battery internal resistance as the slope between measured voltage and current operating points, namely, as the change in voltage divided by the change in current – See at least ¶33 and 36).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hatsumi, Yun, and Yamamoto and include the feature of a resistance value derivation unit that derives the resistance value of the battery, wherein the resistance value derivation unit derives the resistance value of the battery based on a voltage change amount and a current change amount of the battery, as taught by Dougherty, to obtain resistance value directly from measurable electrical characteristic of the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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 5712703713. 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.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights