DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 07/08/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 6-7 of claim 9, it appears that “an expected power” should be changed to “[[an]] the expected power.”
In line 10 of claim 11, it appears that the phrase “for section” should be changed to “for a section.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 19/258,477 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences substantially amount to minor wording changes, an additional non-limiting phrase in the preamble of instant claim 1, and an additional step of changing usage plans in the reference claims. The differences are underlined in the table below. Note that while instant claim 1 includes a limitation specifying the use of a controller to execute the determination step, reference claim 11 also includes limitations requiring the use of such a controller for the determination step.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant application 19/263,474
Reference application 19/258,477
1. A method for controlling dual batteries to supply power to a driving motor for wheel driving installed in a vehicle and control a power flow between a first battery of the dual batteries and a second battery of the dual batteries, the method comprising:
determining, by a controller, a usage plan of the first battery and the second battery for a section of an expected driving path; and
charging or discharging the first battery and the second battery based on the usage plan.
1. A method for controlling usage of dual batteries including a first battery and a second battery to supply power to a driving motor for wheel driving installed in a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining a usage plan of at least one of the first battery or the second battery for a plurality of sections of an expected driving path;
changing usage plans for two consecutive sections of the plurality of sections when a battery for a previous section of the two consecutive sections is different from a battery for a next section of the two consecutive sections; and
charging or discharging the first battery or the second battery based on the changed usage plans.
11. A vehicle comprising:
a plurality of wheels;
a driving motor configured to drive at least one of the plurality of wheels; and
a controller configured to control a power flow between the driving motor and a first battery or a second battery,
wherein the controller comprises a memory storing computer-readable instructions and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-readable instructions, and
wherein the computer-readable instructions comprise
determining a usage plan of the first battery and the second battery for section of an expected driving path, and
charging or discharging the first battery and the second battery based on the usage plan.
11. A vehicle comprising:
a plurality of wheels;
a driving motor configured to drive at least one of the plurality of wheels; and
a controller configured to control a power flow between the driving motor and a first battery or a second battery,
the controller comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-readable instructions,
wherein the computer-readable instructions comprise:
determining a usage plan of the first battery or the second battery for each section of a plurality of sections of an expected driving path;
changing usage plans for two consecutive sections when a battery for a previous section of two consecutive sections of the plurality of sections is different from a battery for a next section of the two consecutive sections; and
charging or discharging the first battery or the second battery based on the changed usage plans.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0402976 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 1:
Kim discloses the following limitations:
“A method for controlling dual batteries to supply power to a driving motor for wheel driving installed in a vehicle and control a power flow between a first battery of the dual batteries and a second battery of the dual batteries, the method comprising: determining, by a controller, a usage plan of the first battery and the second battery for a section of an expected driving path.” (Kim ¶ 16: “A controller calculates current charging amounts and target charging amounts of first and second batteries configured to supply power to a starter and electrical loads of the vehicle. The controller estimates regenerative energy of the first battery and regenerative energy of the second battery based on predicted vehicle travel information. The controller determines whether a road section in which the vehicle travels is a regenerative braking section based on the predicted vehicle travel information and vehicle position information.”)
“and charging or discharging the first battery and the second battery based on the usage plan.” (Kim ¶ 16: “The controller controls the generator, the first battery, and the second battery so that a charging amount of the first battery does not exceed the target charging amount of the first battery, a charging amount of the second battery does not exceed the target charging amount of the second battery, and the generator of the vehicle maximally charges the first battery and the second battery when the road section in which the vehicle travels is the regenerative braking section.”)
Regarding claim 2:
Kim discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Kim further discloses the method “further comprising correcting a first usage plan for a first section of the expected driving path in which both the first battery and the second battery are used according to the determined usage plan.” (Kim ¶ 17: “The method of controlling a generator for a vehicle may further include determining, by the controller, whether a sum of the required charging energy of the first battery and the required charging energy of the second battery exceeds a sum of the regenerative energy of the first battery and the regenerative energy of the second battery when the road section in which the vehicle travels is not the regenerative braking section, in which when the sum of the required charging energy of the first battery and the required charging energy of the second battery is equal to or lower than the sum of the regenerative energy of the first battery and the regenerative energy of the second battery, the controller controls the generator, the first battery, and the second battery so that the charging amount of the first battery is maintained as the target charging amount of the first battery, the charging amount of the second battery is maintained as the target charging amount of the second battery, and power of the first battery and power of the second battery are discharged to the electrical loads.”)
Regarding claim 3:
Kim discloses “The method of claim 2,” and Kim further discloses “wherein correcting the first usage plan comprises correcting the first usage plan based on an expected consumption energy of the first battery and the second battery.” (Kim ¶¶ 17-18 disclose that correcting the usage plan is based in part on “the required charging energy of the first battery” and “the required charging energy of the second battery,” where “The controller may calculate the required charging energy of the first battery by subtracting the current charging amount of the first battery from the target charging amount of the first battery, and calculate the required charging energy of the second battery by subtracting the current charging amount of the second battery from the target charging amount of the second battery.”)
Regarding claim 4:
Kim discloses “The method of claim 3,” and Kim further discloses “wherein the expected consumption energy comprises at least one of a battery discharging energy, a battery charging energy, a battery conditioning energy, or a coolant energy.” (Kim ¶ 18: “The controller may calculate the required charging energy of the first battery by subtracting the current charging amount of the first battery from the target charging amount of the first battery, and calculate the required charging energy of the second battery by subtracting the current charging amount of the second battery from the target charging amount of the second battery.” This at least teaches that the expected consumption energy comprises “a battery charging energy” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 4, consistent with the instant specification, the expected consumption energy comprising “at least one of a battery discharging energy, a battery charging energy, a battery conditioning energy, or a coolant energy” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “battery charging energy” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 11:
Kim discloses “A vehicle comprising: a plurality of wheels; a driving motor configured to drive at least one of the plurality of wheels; and a controller configured to control a power flow between the driving motor and a first battery or a second battery, wherein the controller comprises a memory storing computer-readable instructions and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-readable instructions.” (Kim ¶ 83-84: “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the device for controlling a generator for a vehicle may include the controller 400, a navigation device 405, the engine 410 such as a diesel engine or a gasoline engine, a generator (or alternator) 415, and first and second batteries 425 and 435 configured to supply power to the starter 420 and electrical loads 440 of the vehicle. … The controller 400 is an electronic control unit (ECU) capable of controlling all operations of the vehicle. For example, the controller 400 may be one or more microprocessors operated by a program (control logic) or hardware (e.g., a microcomputer) including the microprocessor, and the program may include a series of instructions for performing the method of controlling a generator for a vehicle according to the exemplary embodiment of the present invention. The instruction may be stored in a memory of the vehicle.” Kim -¶ 82 also discloses that the vehicle includes a driver, which implies that the vehicle would need to include a plurality of wheels and a driving motor for driving at least one of the wheels.)
The remaining limitations of claim 11 are disclosed by Kim using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 12-14:
Claims 12-14 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2-4 above, respectively.
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 5-6, 8, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 above, and further in view of Bae et al. (US 2021/0151992 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bae.
Regarding claim 5:
Kim discloses “The method of claim 4,” but Kim does not specifically disclose “wherein correcting the first usage plan comprises comparing a first expected consumption energy for the first battery with a second expected consumption energy for the second battery.” However, Bae does teach this limitation. (Bae ¶¶ 205-207: “The controller 142 predicts the power consumption of a first load L1 connected to the first battery 123 and determines whether to charge the first battery 123 on the basis of the predicted power consumption of the first load L1, and predicts the power consumption of a second load L2 connected to the second battery 128 and determines whether to charge the second battery 128 on the basis of the predicted power consumption of the second load L2. … The controller 142, during the charging control of the second battery 128, controls the first power converter to be in a buck mode if the voltage of the second battery 128 is lower than that of the first battery, and controls the first power converter to be in a boost mode if the voltage of the second battery 128 is higher than that of the first battery.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim by comparing the expected consumption energy levels for the first and second batteries as taught by Bae with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Bae ¶¶ 282-284 teach that this can help prevent battery discharge, extend the life of the batteries, and thereby “increase the user's satisfaction, improve the user's convenience, reliability and vehicle safety, and ensure the competitiveness of the product.”
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Kim and Bae teaches “The method of claim 5,” and Bae also teaches “wherein correcting the first usage plan comprises determining the second battery as a battery for the charging or discharging process in the first section when the first expected consumption energy is greater than the second expected consumption energy, or determining the first battery as a battery for the charging or discharging process in the first section when the first expected consumption energy is less than the second expected consumption energy.” (Bae ¶¶ 205-210: “The controller 142 predicts the power consumption of a first load L1 connected to the first battery 123 and determines whether to charge the first battery 123 on the basis of the predicted power consumption of the first load L1, and predicts the power consumption of a second load L2 connected to the second battery 128 and determines whether to charge the second battery 128 on the basis of the predicted power consumption of the second load L2. … The controller 142, during the charging control of the second battery 128, controls the first power converter to be in a buck mode if the voltage of the second battery 128 is lower than that of the first battery, and controls the first power converter to be in a boost mode if the voltage of the second battery 128 is higher than that of the first battery. … The controller 142 may control the second switch to be at an on state during the charging control of the second battery 128 using the power of the first battery, and may control the second switch to be at an off state when the charge of the second battery 128 is completed.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim by identifying a battery for a charging or discharging process based on comparing the expected consumption energy levels of the first and second batteries as is taught by Bae with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Bae ¶¶ 282-284 teach that this can help to prevent battery discharge, extend the life of the batteries, and thereby “increase the user's satisfaction, improve the user's convenience, reliability and vehicle safety, and ensure the competitiveness of the product.”
Regarding claim 8:
Kim discloses “The method of claim 2,” but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first section comprises a section in which the first battery is used for a charging process and the second battery is used for a discharging process, or the first battery is used for a discharging process and the second battery is used for a charging process.” However, Bae does teach this limitation. (Bae ¶ 203: “The second switch S2 turns on or off a connection between the first battery 123 and the second battery 128. The second switch S2 in an on-operation allows the power of the first battery 123 to be supplied to the second battery 128, or in an off-operation, blocks the power of the first battery 123 from being supplied to the second battery 128.” This at least teaches the first section comprising a section in which “the first battery is used for a discharging process and the second battery is used for a charging process” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 8, consistent with the instant specification, the first section comprising “a section in which the first battery is used for a charging process and the second battery is used for a discharging process, or the first battery is used for a discharging process and the second battery is used for a charging process” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only a section in which “the first battery is used for a discharging process and the second battery is used for a charging process” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim by identifying when the first battery should be used in a discharge process to charge the second battery as taught by Bae with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Bae ¶¶ 282-284 teach that this can help to prevent battery discharge, extend the life of the batteries, and thereby “increase the user's satisfaction, improve the user's convenience, reliability and vehicle safety, and ensure the competitiveness of the product.”
Regarding claims 15-16 and 18:
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 5-6 and 8 above, respectively.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Oh (US 2016/0046204 A1).
Regarding claim 9:
Kim discloses “The method of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the limitations listed below. However, Oh does teach these limitations:
“further comprising: dividing the expected driving path into a plurality of sections based on driving conditions to determine at least one section.” (Oh ¶ 34: “The power supply system includes a calculation unit configured to divide a route from a departure point to a destination marked in three-dimensional (3D) map information into a plurality of sections, and calculate the amount of power of the fuel cell for future use for the hybrid vehicle to drive each of the sections.”)
“and determining an expected power for the at least one section of the plurality of sections based on driving habit data.” (Oh ¶ 45: “A future-use power amount stored in the future-use power amount storage region 223 may be an amount of power of the fuel cell 130 required when the vehicle drives a driving section under control of the control unit 240 which will be described below. In the future-use power amount storage region 223, information regarding a section that the vehicle traveled and the amount of power of the fuel cell 130 that was actually used in this section may be updated and stored.” Also, Oh ¶ 55: “when a section among the plurality of sections (the first section to the N.sup.th section) is identical to a section that a vehicle drove and information of which is stored in the memory 220, the future-use power amount calculation unit 242 may set the amount of power for future use for the section as the amount of power for future use of the section, the information of which is stored in the memory 220.”)
“wherein determining the usage plan comprises determining the usage plan based on an expected power.” (Oh ¶ 48 discloses that the control unit “calculates the amount of power of the fuel cell 130 for future use when a vehicle will drive from the departure point to the destination, and controls the fuel cell 130 to be on or off when the vehicle starts to drive, based on the state-of-charge (SoC) of the high-voltage battery 110, the amount of power output from the fuel cell 130, and the amount of power of the fuel cell 130 for future use.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim by dividing the expected route into sections and determining a usage plan based on an expected power for one of the sections as taught by Oh with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art may have been motivated to do this because Oh ¶ 26 teaches that with this feature, “a problem of a fuel cell that takes a long time to be started may be solved by determining the amount of power for future use beforehand,” “a fuel cell may be operated only in sections in which the fuel cell exhibits optimum efficiency other than in sections in which the fuel cell exhibits low efficiency by determining the amount of power for future use beforehand,” and “the amount of power for future use may be predicted based on the 3D map information including the geographic information from the departure point to the destination, thereby stably managing power of a battery.”
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 9 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Oh as applied to claims 9 and 19 above, and further in view of Puts et al. (WO 2025/033161 A1), hereinafter referred to as Puts.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Kim and Oh teaches “The method of claim 9,” but does not explicitly teach the method “further comprising performing a conditioning control for the first battery or the second battery based on the usage plan.” However, Puts does teach this limitation. (Puts ¶¶ 58-61: “Referring to FIG. 5A, a prediction or forecast of a propulsion energy demand, a cabin conditioning energy demand (cabin air conditioning), and a battery conditioning energy demand expected by the system along a predetermined route is performed, respectively. … Global (energy) coordination is then performed using model predictive control, i.e., the aforementioned of MPC (Model Predictive Control) techniques, and as a result provides an energy distribution corresponding to the system inputs for distributing available energy from the BEV's battery to the requesting subsystems such as the electric powertrain (e-drive train), cabin conditioning (cabin comfort), and BEV battery conditioning.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Kim and Oh by performing battery conditioning based on predicted demand over the expected driving path as taught by Puts with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Puts ¶ 50 teaches that this can help “to ensure maximum driver satisfaction in terms of comfort, driving pleasure, and convenience, while reaching the destination with sufficient battery charge.”
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 10 above, mutatis mutandis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are each 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lu et al. (US 2025/0206174 A1) ¶¶ 50-54 disclose a vehicle charging control system with first and second usage devices in which “insufficient battery level of the energy storage battery corresponding to the second usage device caused by using the second usage device for multiple times during the trip may be avoided,” and in which, “If a second battery level is determined to be no less than the predicted power consumption amount of the first usage device, the second charging amount is determined as the first charging amount, where the second battery level is a sum of the second charging amount and the remaining battery level of the first energy storage battery.”
Wu et al. (US 2020/0259229 A1) Abstract discloses a temperature adjustment system and method for heating or cooling a vehicle battery with steps for “obtaining a required power used for performing temperature adjustment on a battery; obtaining an actual power used for performing temperature adjustment on the battery; and adjusting an opening degree of an intra-vehicle cooling branch and an opening degree of a battery cooling branch according to the required power, the actual power, an intra-vehicle temperature, and an air conditioner set temperature.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights