Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a communication on 6/06/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim interpretations
3. 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.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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.
5. 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 “...a data capturing unit...” (see claims 1, 7 or 13-14).
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
6 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.
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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 processor configured to.. ” (see pending claim 1 line 3); “the processor is further configured to...”. (see pending claim 6 lines 1-2); and it is unclear about a claimed limitation of claim 5 “the resistor is position within the battery pack” (i.e., lying inside a battery pack), versus claim 4 where “the resistor is positioned substantially adjacent to the battery pack” (“substantially” is merely a relative term, the examiner’s position is “a resistor is “substantially” placing near/close to a battery pack just for a certain intent of use).
10. Because this/these claim limitation 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 “unique” structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
11. 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.
12. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function..
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.
13. Claims 1-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hashimoto et al (US Pub. 20250167331 A1 – hereafter: Hashimoto’331) in view of Cooley’809 (US Pat. 5775809).
A, Per dependent claims 1, 13, 15, and 19: Hashimoto’331 teaches a battery temperature management system, and a corresponding method, comprising:
a drive unit including a motor 34(see Hashimoto’331 FIG. 2); and
a power unit including a battery pack 41 (see Hashimoto’331 FIG. 2), and a processor to direct regenerative braking current from the motor to the resistor to heat the battery pack based on a motor current value and a battery pack state of charge value (e.g., BATTERY CONTROL UNIT 46 of FIG. 2, see Hashimoto’331 para. [0099]).
Hashimoto’331 does not expressly disclose a resistor to be directly used for a battery pact temperature monitoring( Hashimoto’331 uses a resistor RS for monitoring a current (by “CURRENT MONITORING UNIT 45”) and using a processor in “BATTERY CONTROL UNIT 46” to convert it to a temperature of a battery pack for adjustments (see Hashimoto’331 FIG. 2); however, Cooley’809 suggests about monitoring a vehicle’s compartment with precisions (see Cooley’809, col.8 lines 37-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Hashimoto’331 with Cooley’809 to obtain a battery pack temperature for adjusting an input motor current because that resistor’s current is precisely proportional to a recharging current of the battery pack current – a well-known application for using a precision resistor in a circuit to monitor temperatures.
B. Per dependent claim 2: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 also teaches the processor selectively directs the regenerative braking current via a switch SW3/SW4 (see Hashimoto’331 Fig. 2).
C. Per dependent claims 3, 18, and 20: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 also teaches the resistor is configured as a resistive heating element (e.g., change temp based on current) such that when the regenerative braking current is delivered to the
resistor, the battery pack is heated (see Hashimoto’331 FIG.2, and Cooley’809 col. 8 lines 37-41).
D. Per dependent claim 4: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 indicates the resistor RS is positioned substantially adjacent to the battery pack 41 (for precision surrounding space sensing see Hashimoto’331 Fig. 2).
E. Per dependent claim 5: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 FIG.2 indicates the resistor RS is positioned within the battery pack 40.
F. Per dependent claim 6: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 suggests that the processor direct the regenerative braking current from the motor to the resistor to heat the battery pack based on a battery pack temperature value (see Hashimoto’331 FIG. 2, para. [0028]).
G. Per dependent claim 7: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 indicates that the battery pack 40 includes a temperature sensor 44 in communication with the processor 46, and the processor determines the battery pack temperature value based on signals from the temperature sensor 44 (see Hashimoto’331 Fig. 2).
H. Per dependent claim 8: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 6 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 suggests that when the battery pack SoC exceeds a threshold SoC value, the battery pack temperature value is below a threshold temperature value, the motor current value is below zero (a determination of a negative current by a processor), the processor directs the regenerative braking current to the resistor by controlling SW3/SW4, see Hashimoto’331 Fig. 2).
I. Per dependent claim 9: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 6 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 suggests that wherein when the battery pack temperature value exceeds a threshold temperature value (for charging a battery), the processor directs the regenerative braking current to the battery pack for charging. see Hashimoto’331 Fig. 2, para. [0080]).
J. Per dependent claim 10: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 6 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 suggests the battery pack includes a charge sensor in communication with the processor, and the processor determines the battery pack state of charge value based on signals from the charge sensor (e.g., using an SoC acquirer 112, see Hashimoto’331 para. [0053]-[0054], [0063]).
K. Per dependent claim 11: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 6 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 suggests a motor current sensor is in electrical communication with the motor and the processor, and the processor determines the motor current value based on signals from the motor current sensor (e.g., a duplication concept of a current sensor across RS, see Hashimoto’331 Fig. 2, ref. 45).
L. Per dependent claim 12: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 suggests a placement of the resistor Rs is spaced apart from the battery pack such that heat escaping as waste heat does not substantially impact a temperature of the battery pack (see Hashimoto’331 Fig. 2, ref. 45).
M. Per dependent claim 14: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 suggests the battery pack and the resistor are in communication with a ground (see Hashimoto’331 FIG. 2, RS since temp sensing is the only purpose).
14. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto’331, in view of Martin’816 (US Pub. 20260160816)
The rationales and reference(s) for a rejection of claim 15 are incorporated
Hashimoto’331 does not disclose that the controller includes an onboard interface and is programmable via the onboard interface; however, Martin’816 suggests that claimed idea (see Martin’816, para. [0032], and [0287]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Hashimoto’331 with Martin’816 to have a common programmable onboard interface because different input conditions can be modified – this concept has been expected for onboard circuitries.
15. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto’331, in view of Takao (US Pub. 20230311706 A1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 15 are incorporated.
Hashimoto’331 uses a BATERY CONTROL UNIT46 to control ON/OFF of SW3/SW4 (see Hashimoto’311 FIG.2); however, Hashimoto’311 does not expressly disclose that when the motor current value is negative and the battery pack state of charge value exceeds a threshold state of charge value, the controller directs the regenerative braking current to the resistor – Takao’706 suggests that claimed idea in para.[0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Hashimoto’331 with Takao’706 to suggest that the controller directs the regenerative braking current to the resistor when the battery pack SoC is greater than a threshold to prolong the battery pack’s life.
Conclusion
16. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
17. The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 10:00AM- 6:00PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 PATER. 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 S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights