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 .
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 data acquisition module” and “a cooperative control module” in claim 9. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiners, the term data acquisition module has been interpreted as any sensors or detecting devices to acquire data regarding the operating state of an electric vehicle’s components. Also, “a cooperative control module” has been interpreted as a software or program for performing the steps recited in claim 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the control center module comprises the electro-thermal cooperative control system as recited in claim 8.”. However, claim 8 is a method claims and refers to the electro-thermal cooperative control method. The examiner believes that there is an inadvertent mistypo in the claim. Therefore, under the examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the applicant meant one of the following:
“wherein the control center module comprises the electro-thermal cooperative control system as recited in claim”, or
“wherein the control center module comprises the electro-thermal cooperative control as recited in claim 8.”.
For examination purpose, the claim is read as the second option, i.e. “wherein the control center module comprises the electro-thermal cooperative control as recited in claim 8.”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al, CN115230433A, hereinafter “Xie”, in view of an article published by Chen et al., under "Game-theoretic approach for complete vehicle energy management. 2014 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC). IEEE, 2014.”, hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches:
An electro-thermal cooperative control method for an electric vehicle, comprising steps of ([0001], “Method and device for coordinated heating control of passenger compartment and power battery in electric vehicles”:
acquiring operating state parameters of electric system equipment and thermal system equipment of the electric vehicle (Abstract, [n0009], “acquire vehicle parameters such as temperature, vehicle speed, and solar radiation state vector;”);
and according to the operating state parameters, adopting ([n0023]-[n0026]);
Xie does not explicitly disclose adopting Stackelberg competition to obtain the next moment operating parameters. However, Xie teaches the core concept of using game theory for similar purpose, specifically disclosing a non-cooperative game theory model ([n0013], [n0024]), and also in some possible embodiments, a cooperative strategy model ([n0119]), to achieve the same goal. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute or modify the game theory models of Xie with Stackelberg competition model, that is a well-known technique. For example, other steps of using the Stackelberg competition recited by the claim that is not directly taught by Xie, are mapped with the NPL as follow:
Chen teaches applying Stackelberg competition model and further teaches the other rest of limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein in the Stackelberg competition, a vehicle energy management system is a leader; and a passenger cabin, a battery and an air conditioning heat pump are followers (Abstract, “The approach is based on a two-level single-leader multi-follower game, in which the driver is considered as a leader and each controlled auxiliary is considered as a follower.”, Note: Controlled auxiliary components can be any desired components in the vehicle like a passenger cabin at etc. __);
the vehicle energy management system sends an optimization strategy to the followers in accordance with an objective function of the vehicle energy management system (Page 1, Right Col, third para, “generating online implementable strategies.”); the followers make decisions in accordance with the optimization strategy sent by the leader (Page 4, right Col, last para)
wherein the optimization strategy sent by the leader is used as a constraint, and the followers calculate an optimized strategy according to objective functions of the followers (Page 3, right para, “At stage m, because of the interdependency in their Stackelberg strategies, all the followers need to negotiate over their decisions and try to reach a mutual agreement. This negotiation gives rise to the second level simultaneous game among all the followers leading to an N-tuple equilibrium strategies” ;
the optimized strategy is then fed back to the leader; when Stackelberg equilibrium is reached after iterations, the leader and the followers obtain an optimal strategy, so as to obtain the next moment operating parameters of the electric system equipment and the thermal system equipment (Page 2, right col, Section A. Solution Concept, Page 3, right Col ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device for cooperative heating control of a passenger compartment of an electric vehicle and a power battery by incorporating a non-cooperative game method, as taught by Xie, with using a Stackelberg competition model which is a well-known recognized strategic game framework where a leader moves first and followers respond sequentially, as taught by Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of optimizing the energy efficiency in an electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Xie teaches wherein in the step of acquiring the operating state parameters of the electric system equipment and the thermal system equipment of the electric vehicle: the electric system equipment comprises the battery, a motor, and an electronic controller ([n0003], [n0006], “power battery”, [n0004], “controlled by different types of motors.”, [n0080], “Electronic expansion valve control unit 202,”); and the thermal system equipment comprises the air conditioning heat pump, a PTC (positive-temperature-coefficient) electric heater, an electronic fan, a blower, a water pump, and a motor electric waste heat recovery device (at least [n0010], “obtain the dynamic thermal model of the heat pump air conditioning system”, [n0241], “The water-heated PTC heater”), [n0041], “fan”, [n0115], “blower”, [n0037], “water pump”, also [n0003] talks about a solution for engine waste heat in electric vehicles which reads on waste heat recovery recited in the claim).
Regarding claim 3, Xie in view of Chen teaches wherein in the step of according to the operating state parameters, adopting the Stackelberg competition to obtain the next moment operating parameters of the electric system equipment and the thermal system equipment (See rejection for claim 1): and Xie discloses the (([n0009]-[n0010], [n0012]-[n0018], [n0017]):
battery charging and discharging powers ([n0188], [n0199], [n0201]),
a motor power consumption, an air conditioning power consumption, an electric heating PTC power consumption, a blower power consumption, an electronic fan power consumption, a water pump power consumption ([n0003], [n0079], [n0088], [n0124], [n0299]),
a battery temperature curve ([n0003], [n0004], [n0006], [n0018]),
and a passenger cabin temperature curve ([n0003], [n0004], [n0015], [n0013])
Xie’s invention is for improving energy saving and passenger compartment temperature comfort control and Xie discloses regulating (reading on obtaining the next moment operating parameter) all the aforementioned items in the claim by adopting a game theory as addressed in the previous paragraph. Therefore, although Xie does not explicitly suggests adopting a Stackelberg competition method, however, it would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify Xie’s invention by substituting the game model taught by Xie with the Stackelberg competition model which is a well-known type of game theory and for example taught by Chen, (as addressed in the rejection of claim 1), with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of optimizing the system energy savings and enhancing the system efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Xie teaches An electro-thermal cooperative control system for an electric vehicle ([0001], “Method and device for coordinated heating control of passenger compartment and power battery in electric vehicles”) comprising a data acquisition module and a cooperative control module (See [n0049]-[n0055], [n0055]-[n0059],[n0068]-[n0070], and Fig. 2) for performing the similar steps as recited in claim 1. Therefore claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as in claim 1 (Please see the rejection for claim 1).
Claim 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie, in view of Chen, further in view of Peng et al., CN112819337A, hereinafter “Peng”.
Regarding claim 8, Xie in view of Chen does not explicitly discloses the limitation recited in claim 8, however, the limitation is a well-known step in applying Stackelberg competition model and for example Peng teaches the recited limitation i.e. wherein the Stackelberg equilibrium is expressed as:
PNG
media_image1.png
99
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
wherein
I
er
,
I
cabin
,
I
bat
,
I
achp
are the objective functions of the vehicle energy management system, the passenger cabin, the battery, and the air conditioning heat pump, respectively; and
s
er
*
,
s
cabin
*
,
s
bat
*
,
s
achp
*
are optimized strategy sets of the vehicle energy management system, the passenger cabin, the battery, and the air conditioning heat pump, respectively (See Peng (translation is provided by examiner), paragraph [n106]), “The game reaches Stackelberg equilibrium when all followers respond optimally to the leader's strategy, and the leader accepts the response. At this time, the following conditions are met:” and also See Eqns (11) and (12) in the translated file or in the original file)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device for cooperative heating control of a passenger compartment of an electric vehicle and a power battery by incorporating a non-cooperative game method, as taught by Xie, with using a well-known Stackelberg competition model, which is a well-known recognized strategic game framework where a leader moves first and followers respond sequentially, as taught by Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success to optimize energy consumption efficiency within the electric vehicle system. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one person with ordinary skill in the art, to apply the Stackelberg equilibrium condition, as taught by Peng, to resolve the model is a predictable implementation of the mathematical framework taught by Xie in view of Chen, to achieve the optimized/updated set of desired parameters based on the constraint function and the followers inputs.
Regarding claim 10, Xie discloses a method and system for cooperative heat management of a whole automobile and teaches the system comprising: a device interface unit (n0122) a communication center module ([n0004]), and a control center module (Fig. 2), however, Xie doesn’t explicitly disclose an Energy-Hub for an electric vehicle, however, Peng teaches an energy hub system (at least [n0002], [n0015]), and further Xie in view of Chen and Peng teaches the electro-thermal cooperative control method as recited in claim 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method taught by Xie with the teachings of Chen and Peng to implement the energy hub of Peng within an electric vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the vehicle’s energy-saving system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teach the limitations of claim 4. Specifically no prior art found to teach the limitation “processing the power and temperature populations with binary crossing and mutation operations, and obtaining a new generation of populations by an elite strategy;” in combination in the other steps recited in claim 4.
The following reference is the most relevant prior art and are representative of the current state of the art:
Lee, Kwang Y., and Zita A. Vale, eds. Applications of modern heuristic optimization methods in power and energy systems. John Wiley & Sons, 2020. (book), hereinafter “Lee”
Regarding claim 4, Xie in view of Chen teaches wherein the step of according to the operating state parameters, adopting the Stackelberg competition to obtain the next moment operating parameters of the electric system equipment and the thermal system equipment, so as to realize the electro-thermal cooperative control of the electric vehicle (See rejection for claim 1), however, it does not explicitly teach or suggest the steps recites in claim 4. Nevertheless, Lee discloses NSGA and TOPSIS technique and teaches:
calculating an initial value of the objective function of the vehicle energy management system, and initializing power and temperature populations using an NSGA (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm) II algorithm (BOOK, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2, Page 430, Chapter 5, Second paragraph);
selecting the power and temperature populations by the leader and sending the optimization strategy to the followers; calculating optimized strategy sets according to the objective functions of the followers, and selecting an optimal solution from the optimal strategy sets by using a TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method (BOOK, Chapter Page 94, Section “TOPSIS”),
However, neither Lee nor no other prior art with the date before the effective filing date was found to teach applying all of the techniques with elite strategy recited in the limitation “and then feeding the optimized strategy back to the leader; after reaching the Stackelberg equilibrium, calculating the objective function of the vehicle energy management system
I
er
i
; processing the power and temperature populations with binary crossing and mutation operations, and obtaining a new generation of populations by an elite strategy;”.
Claims 5-7 depend on claim 4, therefore, they are also objected but would be allowable if the parent claim encompasses the allowable subject matter of claim 4.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Docimo et al, at https://doi.org/10.1115/DSCC2018-9215, Docimo, Donald J., Herschel C. Pangborn, and Andrew G. Alleyne. "Hierarchical control for electro-thermal power management of an electric vehicle powertrain." Dynamic Systems and Control Conference. Vol. 51906. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018.
Fang et al., CN112069734B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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 Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights