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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 05/28/2025. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 05/30/2024.
Status of Application
Claims 1-19 are pending.
No claims are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
Claims 1-19 will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 05/28/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 12, and 18-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al., US 20170149261, herein further known as Yang, in view of SCHROEDEL et al., US 20220339978, herein further known as Schroedel.
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses managing a power supplying system (¶¶ [0033-0035]) which is suitable to be installed onboard a vehicle (¶ [0033], controller within vehicle) and comprises at least a main power generation device (¶¶ [0007-0008], [0041], an engine, an alternator, a motor,) and at least one battery suitable for electrically backing-up or supporting (¶¶ [0029-0031], first battery, [0029], [0037-0041], second battery) the main power generation device (¶¶ [0007-0008], [0041]), the method comprising: detecting if the vehicle has been jump-started (¶¶ [0011-0018]) and, in the affirmative case, allowing the vehicle to proceed at a speed below a predefined speed threshold (¶¶ [0019], [0056], claim 1, limit speed/velocity); performing at least one active test of the at least one battery thereby verifying its present level of charge (¶¶ [0015], potential at the front stage of the relay (i.e. active test) may be the sum of battery voltages [0033], battery management system (BMS), collect battery state information… in consideration of a battery state); comparing the present level of charge of the at least one battery with at least one predefined charge threshold for the battery (¶ [0034]); if the verified present level of charge of the at least one battery is below the at least one predefined charge threshold, executing at least one of: issuing a warning signal (Sw) for a user of the vehicle; limiting/inhibiting at least one operation executable by the vehicle and/or power supply of one or more power consuming loads onboard the vehicle (¶¶ [0019], [0056], claim 1, limit speed/velocity).
However, Yang does not explicitly state level of charge of battery, issuing a warning signal (Sw) for a user of the vehicle.
Schroedel teaches level of charge of battery, issuing a warning signal (Sw) for a user of the vehicle (¶¶ [0021], [0127]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Yang the level of charge of battery, issuing a warning signal (Sw) for a user of the vehicle as taught by Schroedel.
One would be motivated to modify Yang in view of Schroedel for the reasons stated in Schroedel paragraph [0004], more robust methods and systems to increase vehicle safety for a vehicle and/or a vehicle driver of the vehicle by monitoring a physical parameter prevailing on the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 6 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Yang discloses active test of the at least one battery and said comparing the present level of charge of the at least one battery with at least one predefined charge threshold are repeated periodically (¶ [0017], switch may be constantly in an ON state (i.e. repeated periodically), and in the determining of whether the vehicle is available for jump-start).
Furthermore, Schroedel teaches removing an issued warning signal (¶ [0147], second signal, which is indicative of the first signal being removed).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Yang the removing an issued warning signal as taught by Schroedel.
One would be motivated to modify Yang in view of Schroedel for the reasons stated in Schroedel paragraph [0004], more robust methods and systems to increase vehicle safety for a vehicle and/or a vehicle driver of the vehicle by monitoring a physical parameter prevailing on the vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, disclose all elements of claim 12 above.
Yang discloses a vehicle comprising a power supply system (¶¶ [0002-0020]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Yang discloses computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by a processing circuitry (¶ [0029], battery management system (BMS) 120).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, in view of ANDERSEN, US 20210190875, herein further known as Andersen.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Yang does not explicitly state test of the at least one battery comprises lowering the voltage output level of the main power generation device at least below a nominal voltage output level of the at least one battery.
Andersen teaches test of the at least one battery comprises lowering the voltage output level of the main power generation device at least below a nominal voltage output level of the at least one battery (¶¶ [0018-0020]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Yang the test of the at least one battery comprises lowering the voltage output level of the main power generation device at least below a nominal voltage output level of the at least one battery as taught by Andersen.
One would be motivated to modify Yang in view of Andersen for the reasons stated in Andersen paragraph [0008], more robust methods and systems to reduce the risk of human errors during disconnection/reconnection of batteries during testing.
Claim(s) 3 and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, in view of KANG, et al., CN 120641770, herein further known as Kang.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Yang does not explicitly state test of the at least one battery comprises switching off for a predetermined interval of time the main power generation device.
Kang teaches test of the at least one battery comprises switching off for a predetermined interval of time the main power generation device (¶ 2. Charging and discharging module, module 200 may perform the charge/discharge test of the battery 100… discharging module 200 applies a predetermined current and voltage for predetermined time to charge the battery 100, and cuts off the power supply to the battery 100 for a predetermined time to maintain the charged state).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Yang the test of the at least one battery comprises switching off for a predetermined interval of time the main power generation device as taught by Kang.
One would be motivated to modify Yang in view of Kang for the reasons stated in Kang, more robust methods and systems to reduce excessively high temperature rise caused by repeated charging and discharging and thereby reduce a failure of the device.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 3. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the methods of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, in view of ING, US 20210237578, herein further known as Ing.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Yang does not explicitly state checking if jump cables are still connected to the at least one battery.
Ing teaches checking if jump cables are still connected to the at least one battery (¶ [0194], test 1812, determines whether the vehicle 900 is connected to a charger (i.e. jump cables)).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Yang the checking if jump cables are still connected to the at least one battery as taught by Ing.
One would be motivated to modify Yang in view of Ing for the reasons stated in Ing paragraph [0001], more robust methods and systems directed to vehicle systems, in particular, toward ejecting faulty drive power sources such as jump cables.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Yang does not explicitly state performed only if it has been checked that no jump cables are still connected to the at least one battery.
Ing teaches performed only if it has been checked that no jump cables are still connected to the at least one battery (¶ [0194], test 1812, determines whether the vehicle 900 is connected to a charger (i.e. jump cables)) wherein the response must be YES or NO.
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Yang the performed only if it has been checked that no jump cables are still connected to the at least one battery as taught by Ing.
One would be motivated to modify Yang in view of Ing for the reasons stated in Ing paragraph [0001], more robust methods and systems directed to vehicle systems, in particular, toward ejecting faulty drive power sources such as jump cables.
Regarding claim 16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 4. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 16 can clearly perform the methods of claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 5. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 17 can clearly perform the methods of claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, in view of KURODA, et al., , US 20120221266, herein further known as Kuroda.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Yang does not explicitly state before said performing at least one active test of the at least one battery, issuing an alert signal (SA) for said user of the vehicle.
Kuroda teaches before said performing at least one active test of the at least one battery, issuing an alert signal (SA) for said user of the vehicle (¶¶ [0049], [0066]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Yang the before said performing at least one active test of the at least one battery, issuing an alert signal (SA) for said user of the vehicle as taught by Kuroda.
One would be motivated to modify Yang in view of Kuroda for the reasons stated in Kuroda paragraph [0004], more robust methods and systems for the purpose of safely using a battery pack using lithium-ion secondary cells for a long period of time.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, in view of HEATLEY, et al., , US 20200376982, herein further known as Heatley.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Yang does not explicitly state checking if one or more data indicative of an occurred jump-start have been recorded in a data storage suitable to be installed onboard of the vehicle.
Heatley teaches checking if one or more data indicative of an occurred jump-start have been recorded in a data storage suitable to be installed onboard of the vehicle (¶ [0024]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Yang the checking if one or more data indicative of an occurred jump-start have been recorded in a data storage suitable to be installed onboard of the vehicle as taught by Heatley.
One would be motivated to modify Yang in view of Heatley for the reasons stated in Heatley paragraph [0032], more robust methods and systems which help keep itself and battery at a safe operating temperature.
Claim(s) 10, and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, in view of KURODA, et al., , US 20120221266, herein further known as Kuroda.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yang, and Schroedel, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Yang does not explicitly state a second predefined charge threshold higher than the first predefined charge threshold and indicative of a level of charge of the at least one battery sufficient for additionally supplying also the second group of one or more loads.
Kuroda teaches a second predefined charge threshold higher than the first predefined charge threshold and indicative of a level of charge of the at least one battery sufficient for additionally supplying also the second group of one or more loads (claim 3).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Yang the second predefined charge threshold higher than the first predefined charge threshold and indicative of a level of charge of the at least one battery sufficient for additionally supplying also the second group of one or more loads as taught by Kuroda.
One would be motivated to modify Yang in view of Kuroda for the reasons stated in Kuroda paragraph [0010], more robust methods and systems when a consumer has approved load control beforehand, and the results of the load control reduces a sense of annoyance.
Regarding claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 10. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform the methods of claim 10. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights