DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on November 10, 2025, claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-19 are pending. Claim 1 is currently amended, claims 3 and 14 were previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Lee focuses of calculating a balancing time for balancing of battery cells within a single battery pack whereas Park relates to the connection of battery packs to a load based on the present battery conditions and are, thus, concerned with problems occurring at different system levels of a battery system.
The reference of Lee is used to disclose that predicting the time to connect the batteries to the system is known in the art. Both Park and Lee are related to the operation of a battery system. Although Lee discloses the balancing between battery cells, the same concept would apply as if the cells were battery modules as a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the same process as taught by Lee may be used for battery modules, as taught by Park, in order to prevent overcharge/discharge in advance of the charging (Lee; ¶25).
The applicant argues that the concept of “balancing time” as used in Lee is different from the claimed step of predicting a time until multiple battery packs can be safely connected to a load Neither Park nor lee suggests the claimed step of connecting only a single pack subject to a predefined power constraint, coupled with predictive determination of the earliest future opportunity to reattempt multi-pack connection.
Although Lee is related to reconnecting battery cells, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that a battery module may be treated in a similar manner as a battery cell.
The applicant argues that the combination of Park and Lee is improper hindsight.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). A person of ordinary skill in the art would apply balancing to Park in order to prevent overcharging and damage to the system.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US20150194707A1 (as cited in the IDS dated 12/30/2021) in view of Chen et al. US20130103332A1 in further view of Lee et al. US20200235588A1.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method for controlling electrical connection of a plurality of battery packs (FIG . 1 at 110) of an electric energy storage system (100) to a load (¶40 – batteries selectively coupled to a load), the plurality of battery packs being configured to be selectively connected in parallel to the load (¶40 – batteries may be selectively coupled in parallel and coupled to a load), each battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells (¶39 – each of the batteries 110 may include a plurality of battery cells 111), the method comprising the steps of:
- obtaining operational data relating to present operating conditions of the electric energy storage system, wherein the operational data include at least a voltage of each one of the plurality of battery packs (¶43 – a battery management unit detects a voltage of each of the batteries);
- based on at least an operational mode of the electric energy storage system and on the voltage of each one of the battery packs (¶46 – the battery management unit may determine a charge or discharge of the battery pack based on the battery voltage), and by allowing simultaneous connection of at least two battery packs to the load, proposing a connection sequence for electrically connecting at least a subset of the plurality of battery packs to the load (¶48-49 control switches to couple the batteries in parallel in ascending order of the battery voltage from the battery having the lowest battery voltage to the highest voltage);
- electrically connecting at least the subset of battery packs to the load in accordance with the proposed connection sequence (¶48-49 control switches to couple the batteries in parallel in ascending order of the battery voltage from the battery having the lowest battery voltage to the highest voltage).
Park discloses the method further comprises the step of:
- prior to connecting at least the subset of battery packs to the load, determining whether the proposed connection sequence fulfils a predetermined connection condition (¶56-57 - the battery voltage of the first battery and that of the second battery are same such that the difference between the voltages are smaller than a threshold voltage), wherein the step of connecting at least the subset of battery packs to the load is only performed when the connection condition is considered to be fulfilled (¶57 – the second switch is closed when the difference between the first voltage and the second voltage is less than a threshold).
Park discloses that when the connection condition is not considered to be fulfilled for any proposed connection sequence involving simultaneous connection of at least two battery packs (¶56-57 where the difference between the voltages are not less than a threshold), the method comprises:
subject to a predefinable power constraint, connecting a single battery pack of the plurality of battery packs to the load (¶57 – only the first battery is charged until the voltage difference is less than a threshold).
determining an earliest point in time (¶61 – a time when one of the batteries is newly coupled in parallel) at which the steps of proposing a connection sequence and determining whether the proposed connection sequence fulfils the predetermined connection condition will be repeated after connection of the single battery pack (¶57 – once the difference between the battery voltages is smaller than a threshold voltage the switches 120 may close allowing charging of the batteries simultaneously; ¶114 – the battery management unit measures the cell voltage using sensors, thus allowing monitoring of the battery and repeating determining the voltage difference in relation to a threshold).
At the determined earliest point in time, repeating the steps of proposing the connection sequence and determining whether the proposed connection sequence fulfils the predetermined connection condition (¶50 -first battery is charged, it is determined whether the charge matches the second battery voltage. When both batteries match, they are both charged until they reach the third battery voltage. Thus, the process is repeated).
Park does not explicitly teach based on the internal resistance of each of the battery packs determining whether the proposed connection sequence fulfils a predetermined condition; predicting a time until connection of more than one battery pack to the load will be possible, and, based on the prediction determining an earliest point in time at which the steps of proposing a connection sequence.
However, it is well-known in the art to account for the internal resistance of a battery when measuring the voltage of a battery.
This is evidenced by Chen which teaches a voltage calibration method such that the voltage is calibrated in proportion to the internal resistances (¶8).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to calibrate the voltage in order provide a more precise voltage data when charging/discharging the battery (Chen; ¶8).
Park and Chen do not explicitly teach predicting a time until connection of more than one battery pack to the load will be possible, and, based on the prediction determining an earliest point in time at which the steps of proposing a connection sequence.
Lee discloses a further step of predicting a time until connection of more than one battery pack to the load will be possible (¶105 – S107 – calculating a balancing time), and, based on the prediction determining an earliest point in time at which the steps of proposing a connection sequence fulfils the predetermined connection condition (¶49-50 balancing of the batteries occurs according to the balancing time – the example is given that if the balancing time calculated is 10 seconds then the batteries C2, C3, C4 are balanced for 10 seconds).
Although Lee discloses the balancing between battery cells, the same concept would apply as if the cells were battery modules as a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the same process as taught by Lee may be used for battery modules, as taught by Park, in order to prevent overcharge/discharge in advance of the charging (Lee; ¶25).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses that if the connection condition is not considered to be fulfilled (¶57 – the difference between the battery voltages smaller than a threshold), at least the steps of proposing a connection sequence and determining whether the proposed connection sequence fulfils the predetermined connection condition are repeated until the connection condition is considered to be fulfilled (¶78 - the management units periodically measure the module voltage and keeps transmitting the measured module voltage to the main management unit).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses that the predetermined connection condition comprises at least a predetermined circulation current connection condition relating to a circulation current expected to flow between the battery packs upon the electrical connection of said subset of battery packs (¶21 – the battery management unit determines the maximum allowable charge/discharge current allowed based on the number of batteries connected in parallel).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses that the step of proposing a connection sequence comprises:
- identifying the subset of battery packs to connect (¶57 - two batteries with the lowest voltage), and
- proposing a point in time at which each battery pack within the subset should be connected (¶56-57 under the broadest reasonable interpretation a connection occurs at the point in time when the difference between a voltage is below a threshold).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses setting a prioritization strategy for the electrical connection of the battery packs to the load (¶49-50 - charging begins with the battery having the lowest battery voltage to the highest).
Park discloses the set prioritization strategy is taken into account in the step of proposing said connection sequence (¶50 – the battery with the lowest is connected working up to the highest).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses that the set prioritization strategy is one of a first prioritization strategy (¶49-50), a second prioritization strategy, and a third prioritization strategy, wherein:
- using the first prioritization strategy, the connection sequence is proposed so as to maximize the state-of-power of the electric energy storage system (¶5 – discloses that an energy storage system is generally a storage apparatus for improving energy efficiency and stably operating an electric power system, thus, the state-of-power is being maximized).
Because only one prioritization strategy is required, using the second prioritization strategy, the connection sequence is proposed so as to minimize the total number of connection instants at which at least one battery pack will be connected to the load, and using the third prioritization strategy, the connection sequence is proposed so as to maximize the state-of-energy of the electric energy storage system are not required to be found since one of the prioritization strategies is disclosed.
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses that the predetermined connection condition is set in dependence on the selected prioritization strategy (¶5 because Park discloses the energy storage system is a storage apparatus for improving energy efficiency and stability, it follows that the connections are preformed to maximize or improve the state-of-power of the storage system).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses repeating the method steps until all battery packs of the electric energy storage system are connected (¶50-51 finally closing the switch corresponding to the battery having the highest voltage).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses a control unit (130) of an electric energy storage system (100) comprising at least two battery packs (FIG. 1 at 110) configured to be selectively electrically connected in parallel (¶49-50), wherein the control unit is configured to execute the steps of the method according to claim 1 (¶49-50).
Regarding claim 15, although Park teaches a control unit 130, Park does not explicitly teach the control unit having a non-transitory computer program readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions to cause a computer program to execute the steps of the method according to claim 1.
Lee discloses a non-transitory computer program readable medium having stored thereon a computer program to execute the steps (¶60 – control unit is implemented as a set of program modules where the program module stored in a memory and executed by a processor) according to claim 1.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art provide program modules as taught by Lee to the controller of Park in order to provide a mechanism for the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses an electric energy storage system (100) comprising at least two battery packs (110) configured to be selectively electrically connected in parallel (¶49-50) and a control unit (130) according to claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, Park does not explicitly disclose that a vehicle comprising an electric energy storage system according to claim 16.
Lee disclose a vehicle comprising (¶4/56) an electric energy storage system (FIG. 1) according to claim 16.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a power supply system to a vehicle in order to provide a power source to a vehicle (¶56).
Regarding claim 18. Park discloses that the predetermined connection condition comprises a predetermined state-of-power connection condition (¶107 – not enough electric power provided to the load) relating to a total state-of-power of the electric energy storage system after electrical connection of said subset of battery packs in accordance with the proposed connection sequence (¶107 – when there is not enough electric power, power is provided to an electrical apparatus having a higher priority within the electrical apparatuses – thus, the switches are connected to allow for charging)
Regarding claim 19. Park discloses the step of proposing a point in time at which each battery pack within the subset should be connected comprises proposing that the respective battery pack should be connected simultaneously with the other battery packs within the subset (¶56 – a threshold value (difference between the battery voltages) is previously set, thus proposed; ¶57 – the point of time being the point in time that each of the switches to each of the batteries should be closed, the point in time being the time when the difference between the battery voltage is smaller than a threshold).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US20150194707A1 in view of Chen et al. US20130103332A1 and Lee et al. US20200235588A1 in further view of Kaneko US20190123568A1.
Regarding claim 5, Park does not explicitly teach that the step of determining whether the proposed connection sequence fulfils the predetermined connection condition comprises at least: based on at least the internal resistance and an open circuit voltage of each one of the battery packs, predicting a magnitude of the circulation current expected to flow between the battery packs upon the electrical connection of said subset of battery packs in accordance with the proposed connection sequence, determining whether the predicted magnitude of the circulation current is within a predetermined allowable range.
Kaneko discloses that the step of determining whether the proposed connection sequence fulfils the predetermined connection condition comprises at least:
- based on at least the internal resistance (R1 and R2) and an open circuit voltage of each one of the battery packs, predicting a magnitude of the circulation current (Ic) expected to flow between the battery packs (101/102) upon the electrical connection of said subset of battery packs in accordance with the proposed connection sequence (¶36),
- determining whether the predicted magnitude of the circulation current is within a predetermined allowable range (¶36 determine whether the circulating current Ic is less than the threshold current Ith).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the connection determination of Kaneko with the connection of Park in order to avoid damaging the battery packs due to the circulating current (Kaneko; ¶36).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US20150194707A1 in view of Chen et al. US20130103332A1 and Lee et al. US20200235588A1 in further view of Nishikawa et al. US20200176829A1.
Regarding claim 6, Park does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined connection condition comprises the predetermined state-of-power connection condition, and wherein the step of determining whether the proposed connection sequence fulfils the predetermined connection condition comprises: determining a state-of-power, SoP, of each one of the battery packs within the subset of battery packs, determining whether a difference in state-of-power between the battery packs within the subset is below a predetermined state-of-power difference threshold.
Nishikawa discloses the predetermined connection condition comprises the predetermined state-of-power connection condition (¶35 – master management device calculates the SOP for discharging the while of the plurality of power storage racks).
Nishikawa discloses determining a state-of-power, SoP, of each one of the battery packs within the subset of battery packs (¶35 – master management unit calculates SOP for plurality of power storage racks),
Nishikawa discloses determining whether a difference in state-of-power between the battery packs within the subset is below a predetermined state-of-power difference threshold (¶36 – the SOPs are ideally identical to each other, thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the difference threshold is zero).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the SOP determination of Nishikawa to the system of Park in order to ensure a necessary current as much as possible without generating a current which exceeds a maximum allowable current which would cause damage to the battery system (Nishikawa; ¶7).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US20150194707A1 in view of Chen et al. US20130103332A1 and Lee et al. US20200235588A1 in further view of Hong et al. US20170166075A1.
Regarding claim 12, Park does not explicitly disclose that after connection of at least the subset of battery packs to the load, determining whether a predetermined disconnection condition is fulfilled for disconnection of at least one battery pack within the subset of battery packs, only if the predetermined disconnection condition is fulfilled, disconnecting the at least one battery pack from the load.
Hong discloses that after connection of at least the subset of battery packs (220) to the load (280), determining whether a predetermined disconnection condition is fulfilled for disconnection of at least one battery pack within the subset of battery packs (¶33 – monitoring circuitry 250 detects a voltage and detects whether the voltage approaches or exceeds a voltage),
Hong discloses that only if the predetermined disconnection condition is fulfilled, disconnecting the at least one battery pack from the load (¶33 - the contactor 230 is disconnected).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to disconnect the batteries of Park as taught by Hong in order to prevent overcharge and damage to the battery (Hong; ¶2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached on 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859