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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I, claims 1-4, 8-10, 13, 16, and 17, in the reply filed on 12/30/22 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5-7, 11, 12, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/22. Although the remarks section in the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 12/30/22 recites the phrase “with traverse”, there is no argument presented as to what errors exist in the restriction requirement. Therefore, as noted above, the election has been treated as an election without traverse.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, line 2 recites “to further performs” which appears to include a typographical error, where the phrase could potentially read “further performs” or “to further perform”. Claim 9 appears to include a typographical error where the term “modules” was replaced by the term “RESMs”, but the term “RESMs” is not underlined in the amendment. Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 9 and is therefore also objected to. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 13, 16, and 17 are 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 1 recites the terms “to operatively manage” and “to perform”, which make it unclear as to whether or not the actions are actually carried out or if they are an intended use or purpose, especially in view of the use of an algorithm executed by the processor. It should be noted that the applicant’s specification does disclose the use of a memory with the processor (para 0069 and 0084), although including the algorithm being stored on the memory (non-transitory media) in the claim language would help provide some additional clarity.
Claim 2 recites the terms “to operatively manage” and “to perform”, which make it unclear as to whether or not the actions are actually carried out or if they are an intended use or purpose, especially in view of the use of an algorithm executed by the processor. It should be noted that the applicant’s specification does disclose the use of a memory with the processor (para 0069 and 0084), although including the algorithm being stored on the memory (non-transitory media) in the claim language would help provide some additional clarity.
Claims 3, 4, 8-10, 13, 16, and 17 are directly or indirectly dependent upon claim 2 and therefore also contain the problematic language.
Claim 9 recites the term “in preference” which makes it unclear as to when the system would use bucking of the RESMs versus using boosted modules and bypassed RESMs, if at all. It is unclear as to what degree/amount the preference would exist.
Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 9 and therefore also contains the problematic language.
Additionally, the term “smoothly” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smoothly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the entire phrase “transition smoothly monotonically” has been rendered indefinite.
Claim 10 also recites the term “to avoid”, which makes it unclear as to whether or not the actions following that term are actually carried out or if they are an intended use or purpose.
Claim 13 recites the term “used to reconfigure…to regulate”, which makes it unclear as to whether or not the actions following that term are actually carried out or if they are an intended use or purpose.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the batteries energy storage units" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, claim 16 recites the term “used to jointly or separately regulate”, which makes it unclear as to whether or not the actions following that term are actually carried out or if they are an intended use or purpose.
Claim 17 recites the term “make use of”, which makes it unclear as to whether or not the actions following that term are actually carried out or if they are an intended use or purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 8, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White (US 2016/0149421).
With respect to claim 1, White discloses a modular energy management system, comprising: a reconfigurable energy storage module (“RESM”), where the RESM comprises an energy storage module (para 0006-0008 and 0018); a processor executing an algorithm (para 0027 and 0059) to operatively manage the RESM and execute instructions to perform the following step: reconfiguring the RESM for one of load power, current, and voltage (para 0019, 0029, and 0033-0034).
With respect to claim 2, White discloses a modular energy management system, comprising: at least two reconfigurable energy storage modules (“RESMs”) connected in series, parallel, or series/parallel (para 0008 and 0017-0019), where each reconfigurable energy storage module (“RESM”) comprises an energy storage unit (para 0006-0008 and 0018); a processor executing an algorithm (para 0027 and 0059) to operatively manage the RESMs and to perform the following steps: reconfiguring the RESMs for one or more of load power, current, voltage, regulation and control (para 0019, 0029, and 0033-0034, also see para 0039-0043 and 0045-0051), and balancing of the energy storage units (para 0052-0057).
With respect to claim 3, White discloses a modular energy management system of claim 2, wherein the algorithm to further performs balancing of each energy storage unit during charge and during discharge of at least one of the RESMs (para 0034, 0038-0039, and 0051-0057).
With respect to claim 4, White discloses a modular energy management system of claim 2, wherein the processor executes the algorithm that further performs balancing of each energy storage unit simultaneous to one or more of load power, current, and voltage regulation and control (para 0029, 0033-0034, and 0063, also see para 0051-0057).
With respect to claim 8, White discloses a modular energy management system of claim 2, wherein the algorithm controls switches inside the energy storage unit for a dual and simultaneous functionality (para 0029, 0034, and 0043, also see para 0023).
With respect to claim 13, White discloses a modular energy management system of claim 2, wherein the algorithm is used to reconfigure one or more of the RESMs on-the-fly to regulate and control either one or more of the load power, current, and voltage and with the RESMs interconnected in series, parallel, or series/parallel (para 0017-0019, 0029, 0033-0034, 0047, and 0063).
With respect to claim 16, White discloses a modular energy management system of claim 2, wherein the algorithm is used to jointly or separately regulate and control load power, voltage and current (para 0019, 0029, and 0033-0034, also see para 0039-0043 and 0045-0051) and simultaneously or separately balance the energy in the batteries energy storage units through the interconnection of multiple RESMs in series, parallel or series/parallel (para 0029, 0033-0034, and 0063, also see para 0051-0057).
With respect to claim 17, White discloses a modular energy management system of claim 2, wherein RESMs forming a larger energy storage system make use of on-the-fly reconfiguration to jointly or separately accomplish either one or more of the load power, current and voltage regulation (para 0017-0019, 0029, 0033-0034, 0047, and 0063) and the balancing of each modular energy management system formed by the series, parallel, or series/parallel interconnection of energy storage modules (para 0029, 0033-0034, and 0063, also see para 0051-0057).
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 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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 2016/0149421) in view of Yang (US 2017/0126133).
With respect to claim 9, White discloses a modular energy management system of claim 2, wherein the algorithm controls bucking of load terminal voltage in the modular energy management system by using boosted modules and by-passed RESMs in preference to bucking RESMs (para 0035, 0042, and 0046).
However, White does not expressly disclose the use of a buck or boost circuit to control the bucking and boosting.
Yang discloses a power converter which includes the use of buck, boost/fly-back, and bypass circuitry (para 0008-0010 and 0024), in order to quickly and efficiently adjust the output power so that it falls within ranges required for safety and compatibility with attached devices.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include buck and boost circuitry in the device of White, as did Yang, so that the device could quickly and efficiently adjust the output power so that it would fall within ranges required for safety and compatibility with a wide array of attached devices.
With respect to claim 10, White discloses the modular energy management system of claim 9, wherein the algorithm controls a bucking mode to transition smoothly and with small-step transitions between battery and by-passing modes and vice versa to avoid sudden load terminal voltage changes as reconfiguration occurs on-the-fly (para 0047 and 0063, also see para 0017).
However, White does not expressly disclose transitioning monotonically.
Yang discloses a power converter which includes the use of a bucking mode to transition smooth and monotonic between different modes of operation (para 0008-0009 and abstract), in order to quickly and efficiently adjust the output voltage while avoiding large changes or interruptions in the output.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include control for smooth and monotonic transition between different modes to avoid sudden voltage changes in the device of White, as did Yang, so that the device could quickly and efficiently adjust the output voltage while avoiding large changes or interruptions in the output.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kristensen (US 2019/0103750) and Hallmark (US 2018/0254651).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON C PIGGUSH whose telephone number is (571)272-5978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Richard Isla can be reached on 571-272-5056. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859