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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deljevic et al. (US 2017/0174157 A1), hereinafter Deljevic.
Regarding claim 1, Deljevic teaches a battery management device configured to:
manage an operation of a battery of a battery electric vehicle,
Deljevic teaches ([0032]): "A battery management system (BMS) 218 may be a controller, processor and memory configured to manage the electric vehicle battery (not shown). The BMS may supply various battery data to the BCM 210 such as a battery critical signal, or other battery data such as the battery state of charge (SOC)."
the battery management device comprising one or more processors that perform output restriction of the battery,
Deljevic teaches ([0029]): "The system 200 may include a body control module BCM 210 configured to interface with an ignition switch 214 and the BMS 218. The BCM 210 may maintain various life cycle modes of the vehicle. The BCM 210 may receive the current life cycle mode from a technician, service provider, engineer, or similar personnel during manufacturing. The life cycle mode may be updated based on the location or status of the vehicle. For example, during assembly and testing at a manufacturing plant, the life cycle mode may be in a ‘factory’ mode. After manufacturing is complete, and the vehicle is being transported to a dealership, the life cycle mode may be in a ‘transport mode’." Deljevic further teaches ([0040]): " As shown in Table 2, The KOL mode is normal when the ignition status is in RUN, START, or ACC. This is due to the fact that these ignition modes require full function. Limiting features in these ignition modes may not be not desirable. When the ignition status is OFF (i.e., the vehicle is keyed off), the KOL mode may be in one of a normal, transport, or factory mode. The BCM 210 may select one of these modes based on the life cycle mode, as well as other factors such as SOC and time since the ignition has been turned off" Deljevic even further teaches ([0041]): "During normal life cycle modes, the KOL mode may be one of normal, hibernate, or critical. If the ignition has recently been turned off, the KOL mode may be in the normal mode. In this mode, normal feature usage may be realized and more load or battery drain is permitted. If the ignition has been off for a predefined amount of time, such as longer than five days, the KOL mode may be hibernating. In this mode, certain features are shut down to conserve battery power. This may be the case when a vehicle is parked for a long time and it may be beneficial to conserve battery power so that the vehicle may eventually be started again." The Examiner has interpreted the KOL mode setting as performing output restriction of the battery, as the KOL modes are described as allowing or restricting battery usage.
However, while Deljevic does teach that the that the one or more processors are configured to relax the output restriction of the battery (see at least [0043]-[0045], [0029], and FIG. 4), Deljevic does not explicitly state that the one or more processors are configured to relax the output restriction of the battery until completion of transport of the battery electric vehicle after shipment. However, while not expressly described in the written description, FIG. 4 of Deljevic allows for transitioning between a hibernate mode and a transport mode. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the teachings of Deljevic to provide:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to relax the output restriction of the battery until completion of transport of the battery electric vehicle after shipment.
Deljevic teaches ([0043]): "When the life cycle mode is transport mode, the KOL mode may also be transport mode. In this mode, many features may be limited, slowed, or disabled to conserve the battery during the transport of the vehicle from the factory to the dealership." Deljevic further teaches ([0045]): "As shown in Table 3, various ECU sleep and KOL requirements are listed. These requirements may describe various vehicle features affected in response to the system 200 attempting to limit the KOL. Table 3 illustrates an example configuration of the various features and requirements that may be affected during certain KOL modes. For example slow input sampling of critical inputs may be enabled when the KOL mode is in transport, hibernate, or critical modes... In the hibernate mode, input polling may be disabled for all non-critical inputs... Furthermore, in the transport mode, input polling may be process at an even slower rate, such as 500 ms or greater, for example." Deljevic even further teaches ([0029]): "After manufacturing is complete, and the vehicle is being transported to a dealership, the life cycle mode may be in a ‘transport mode’. Furthermore, once the vehicle reaches the dealership, appropriate personnel may update the life cycle status to a ‘normal’ mode." FIG. 4, included below, demonstrates that it is possible for the vehicle to transition from hibernate mode to transport mode (as well as the inverse). While this scenario is not explicitly stated by Deljevic, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the teachings of Deljevic based upon the teachings of FIG. 4. Thus, the output restriction of the battery (i.e., disabling input polling to reduce battery drain) is relaxed (i.e., input polling occurs at a slower rate) until completion of transport of the battery electric vehicle after shipment (i.e., once the vehicle reaches the dealership, the life cycle status updates to 'normal' mode).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined embodiments of Deljevic to provide that the one or more processors are configured to relax the output restriction of the battery until completion of transport of the battery electric vehicle after shipment. Paragraphs [0029] and [0040]-[0045] teach switching between life cycle modes and KOL modes, in particular describing transition between a transport mode while the vehicle is being transported to a dealership and a normal mode once the vehicle reaches the dealership. However, these teachings of Deljevic do not explicitly describe transition from the hibernate mode to the transport mode. Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art would, upon analysis of FIG. 4 of Deljevic, recognize that the teachings of Deljevic enable the transition from hibernate mode to the transport mode (as well as the inverse). In particular, the process 400 of FIG. 4 of Deljevic illustrates that it is possible for the vehicle to transition from the normal mode with the KOL mode set to hibernate to the transport mode and associated KOL transport mode. Referring to [0045], in the hibernate mode, input polling may be disabled for all non-critical inputs in order to restrict battery usage. The same paragraph teaches that in the transport mode, input polling may be processed, but at a slow rate such as 500ms or greater. Thus, during transport of the battery electric vehicle (i.e., after shipment and until completion of transport), the output restriction of the battery is relaxed, as input polling is allowed to occur at a slow rate whereas input polling may be disabled during the hibernate mode. Such an arrangement would be advantageous, as battery power is conserved during the hibernate mode, as recognized by Deljevic (see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Deljevic teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Deljevic further teaches:
the one or more processors are further configured to inhibit relaxation of the output restriction in a case where a state of the battery is a relaxation-prohibited state in which the relaxation of the output restriction is not permitted.
Deljevic teaches ([0042]): "During the normal life cycle mode, the KOL may be critical when the BCM 210 receives indications that the battery SOC is below a certain threshold. This indication may be received in the form of a SOC value received from the BMS 218. In this example, the BCM 210 may determine whether the SOC is below a predefined threshold. That is, if the SOC is below 10%, for example, then the BCM 210 may determine that the battery is critical, and trigger the critical KOL mode. In another example the BMS 218 may transmit a battery critical signal to which the BCM 210 may select the critical KOL mode. In this mode, as much battery power should be conserved as possible to allow the customer to start the car. This mode may be entered whenever the SOC is below a certain threshold, regardless of when the ignition has been turned off." FIG. 4, included above, demonstrates that when the battery SOC is critical, KOL cannot be set to Normal or Hibernate modes and must be set the KOL mode to critical.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deljevic in view of Egoshi (US 2013/0181672 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Deljevic teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Deljevic does not outright teach that the one or more processors are configured to determine that the transport of the battery electric vehicle after the shipment has been completed, in response to a charging history of the battery being recorded. Egoshi teaches a vehicle battery charging reservation system, comprising:
the one or more processors are configured to determine that the transport of the battery electric vehicle after the shipment has been completed, in response to a charging history of the battery being recorded.
Egoshi teaches ([0033]): "When a charging connector of a power cable .alpha. is connected to a cable connecting terminal of a vehicle, communication is established between the vehicle and the battery charger 300. By this, the battery charger 300 can detect that the vehicle has arrived at the charging facility." Egoshi is modified such that the charging facility corresponds to the dealership of Deljevic.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deljevic to incorporate the teachings of Egoshi to provide that the one or more processors are configured to determine that the transport of the battery electric vehicle after the shipment has been completed, in response to a charging history of the battery being recorded. Deljevic and Egoshi are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle battery management. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Egoshi, as in addition to the benefit of detecting that the vehicle has arrived (see at least [0033]), Egoshi provides the further benefit of generating and updating charger reservation schedules based on the detection of the arrival of the vehicle (see at least [0078]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deljevic in view of Patenaude (US 2006/0241817 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Deljevic teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Deljevic does not outright teach that the one or more processors are configured to determine that the transport of the battery electric vehicle after the shipment has not been completed, in response to a specific operation being performed on an operation member provided in the battery electric vehicle. Deljevic teaches vehicle communications including telematics unit mode switching, comprising:
the one or more processors are configured to determine that the transport of the battery electric vehicle after the shipment has not been completed, in response to a specific operation being performed on an operation member provided in the battery electric vehicle.
Patenaude teaches ([0062]): "In yet another embodiment, the telematics unit includes more than two wake up modes. For example, FIG. 6 illustrates a schematic diagram of a telematics unit switching between a plurality of modes at 600 in accordance with one embodiment of the invention. In this embodiment, the telematics unit includes a pre-delivery mode 610 applicable while the vehicle is in transit between a factory and a dealership, during which the telematics unit wakes up for one minute on a four-hour interval." Patenaude further teaches ([0064]): "In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 6, the action of changing between modes is the result of receiving a signal at the telematics mode responsive to a trigger event. For example, when switching between a pre-delivery mode 610 and dealership mode 620, the switch occurs, in one embodiment, in response to a GPS unit determining that the vehicle is within a GPS location predetermined to be the dealership." One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, based on the above teachings, switching from the pre-delivery mode to the dealership mode would not occur when the GPS unit determines that the vehicle is outside of the predetermined GPS location of the dealership (i.e., the GPS unit is used to determine whether the shipment of the vehicle has been completed or has not been completed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deljevic to incorporate the teachings of Patenaude to provide that the one or more processors are configured to determine that the transport of the battery electric vehicle after the shipment has not been completed, in response to a specific operation being performed on an operation member provided in the battery electric vehicle. Deljevic and Patenaude are each concerned with shipment of a vehicle to a dealership, and each teach comparable modes for the vehicle during shipping. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Patenaude, as incorporating the GPS location monitoring of Patenaude beneficially allows for both of determining that the shipment has not been completed and determining that the shipment has been completed, as recognized by Patenaude (see at least [0062]-[0064]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deljevic in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0099749 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 5, Deljevic teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 4. However, Deljevic does not outright teach that the one or more processors are configured to estimate an internal resistance of the battery, and determine that the battery is in the relaxation-prohibited state in a case where the internal resistance exceeds a threshold value. Wang teaches a method for monitoring battery degradation, comprising:
the one or more processors are configured to estimate an internal resistance of the battery,
Wang teaches ([0057]): "In some implementations, control board 110 is configured to determine that the internal resistance value of battery 112 is above a predetermined internal resistance value and, in response, may disable the electronic device that houses battery pack 102. For example, control board 110 may measure the internal resistance value of battery 112 and disable the electronic device if the measured internal resistance value is greater than a predetermined internal resistance value."
and determine that the battery is in the relaxation-prohibited state in a case where the internal resistance exceeds a threshold value.
Wang teaches ([0057]): "In some implementations, control board 110 is configured to determine that the internal resistance value of battery 112 is above a predetermined internal resistance value and, in response, may disable the electronic device that houses battery pack 102. For example, control board 110 may measure the internal resistance value of battery 112 and disable the electronic device if the measured internal resistance value is greater than a predetermined internal resistance value." Wang is modified such that the electronic device of Wang corresponds to the battery electric vehicle of Deljevic.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deljevic to incorporate the teachings of Wang to provide that the one or more processors are configured to estimate an internal resistance of the battery, and determine that the battery is in the relaxation-prohibited state in a case where the internal resistance exceeds a threshold value. Deljevic and Wang are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle battery management. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Wang, as measuring the internal resistance value of the battery allows for an indication of whether swelling of the battery is occurring, as recognized by Wang (see at least [0050]). In cases where the internal resistance exceeds a threshold internal resistance value, Wang advantageously teaches disabling the device that houses the battery, thereby preventing any additional degradation of the battery, as recognized by Wang (see at least [0056]-[0057]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Przybylski (US 2012/0193981 A1) teaches a system and method for automatically managing current draw from a vehicle battery caused by a telematics unit during shipping of the vehicle, wherein the telematics unit may be programmed to ignore awake algorithms or awake parameters until the device determines that it is within a pre-defined area defined as the destination (e.g., a vehicle dealership), as recognized by Przybylski (see at least [0003]-[0005] and FIG. 2). Krishnan (US 2016/0379424 A1) teaches a vehicle transportation mode used to decrease use of a vehicle battery and prevent battery drain during transportation of the vehicle from a first location to a second, remote location (e.g., shipping a vehicle from an assembly location to a dealership), wherein in the transportation mode, functions of the vehicle may be disabled to limit battery use or to safeguard the vehicle during transportation (see at least [0034]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights