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 Objections
Claims 1, 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claims 1, 18, it is noted as drafted the claims only mention the battery energy storage system (BESS) in the preamble, without reciting in the body of the claims any structure of the BESS which would actually require a battery or other energy storage. It is recommended that if the claims are intended to require a battery energy storage device or similar to be present as part of the system that the claims be amended to explicitly recite the corresponding structure and any intended relationship with the other system components in the body of the claims to avoid confusion and unintended broad interpretation. It is also noted generally that although claim 18 recites an additional battery container, a first battery container has not otherwise been recited/introduced beforehand as drafted.
Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantine (US2019/0190053).
Re claim 1. Ballantine teaches a battery energy storage system (BESS) (see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32; note Objection above regarding BESS structure, and also Ballantine: [0137], [0144] regarding some modules <100> being Co-Gen modules using battery cabinets) comprising:
a first equipment unit (some or all of bottom row of modules, see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32) comprising:
a first skid (bottom row base <20>/container <2606> bottom, see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32 regarding bottom row able to be placed on surface) configured to be positioned on a surface;
a first inverter (inverter of a conditioning module <18> on bottom row, see Ballantine: [0053-0054], [0144], Figs. 5, 32) mounted on the first skid; and
a first transformer (transformer of a fuel cell module <100> on bottom row, see Ballantine: [0043], [0049], [0144], Figs. 2-4, 32) mounted on the first skid;
a second equipment unit (some or all of top row of modules, see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32) comprising:
a second skid (top row base <20>/container <2606> bottom, see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32);
a second inverter (inverter of a conditioning module <18> on top row, see Ballantine: [0053-0054], [0144], Figs. 5, 32) mounted on the second skid; and
a second transformer (transformer of a fuel cell module <100> on bottom row, see Ballantine: [0043], [0049], [0144], Figs. 2-4, 32) mounted on the second skid; and
a support structure (support pillars <3202>, see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32 regarding support pillars for vertically positioning top row base <20> above bottom row modules) for positioning the second equipment unit longitudinally above and spaced apart from the first equipment unit. See Ballantine: [0043], [0049], [0053-0054], [0060-0064], [0137], [0144], Figs. 1-5, 32.
The example arrangement shown in Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32, does not explicitly depict the second equipment unit spaced apart from the first equipment unit in a laterally offset manner (though it is noted the structural details for what parts/manner of laterally offset are unspecified). Ballantine, however, further discloses further modifications of the system, including that any number of modules or rows of modules may be stacked as desired per user’s need/scale of the system (see Ballantine: [0144], Figs. 5, 32) as well as any number and arrangement/order of different types of each module (see Ballantine: [0061], [0063-0064]), arrangements having two rows on each level with modules back to back (see Ballantine: [0060], [0145], Figs. 5, 33 regarding two rows back to back to allow airflow in between for example) and generally modules able to spaced out from each other (see Ballantine: [0150]). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that the teachings of Ballantine suggest that one or more rows of modules including fuel cell modules <100> and conditioning modules <18> may be arranged with any number or order, some facing opposite direction on each level of the stack, while still continuing to provide the same overall electrical functions and necessary connections of the system. It has also been held that generally a rearrangement of parts or particular placement of parts which do not modify the operation of the device is an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system of Ballantine such that the second equipment unit/top row of modules is in some way laterally offset from the first equipment unit/bottom row of modules given the various modifications of placement/arrangement/number of modules suggested by Ballantine and as one of a number of possible arrangements that would be obvious to try that would result in the modules arranged according to Ballantine’s suggestions while still predictably performing the same overall electrical functions (see Ballantine: [0060-0064], [0144-0145], [0150], Figs. 5, 32-33). For example, one of ordinary skill may readily envision an embodiment where two back to back rows are located on top and bottom row, with fewer/more modules on the top row and fuel cell modules <100> and conditioning modules <18> in a different order, such that it may be said that the set of modules making up the second equipment unit are “laterally offset” from the set of modules making up the first equipment unit in both left/right direction and/or front/back direction as a result.
Re claim 2. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 1, wherein: the first equipment unit and the second equipment unit are functionally and structurally interchangeable (see Ballantine: [0060-0064], [0144], Fig. 32 regarding modules on top and bottom row having same design, and general ability to add/replace); and the first equipment unit and the second equipment unit are rotated opposite each other relative to a horizontal plane such that the first inverter is at least partially under the second transformer and the first transformer is at least partially under the second inverter (see Ballantine: [0060-0064], [0144-0145], Fig. 32-33, and discussion of claim 1 above regarding obviousness of rearrangement/reordering of each row generally; for example, the top row may swap a fuel cell module <100> with a conditioning module <18> position, thereby rotating their positions and placing inverter under transformer and vice versa; for example with two back to back rows, there may be fuel cell module and conditioning module on top row facing opposite direction with some partial overlap of middle section of the modules). One of ordinary skill would also generally find it obvious to rearrange the general position of the modules while performing the same general functions on each base given the reasons discussed in claim 1.
Re claim 3. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 2, wherein: outer dimensions of the first equipment unit are defined by first outer housings for the first inverter and the first transformer; outer dimensions of the second equipment unit are defined by second outer housing for the second inverter and the second transformer (see Ballantine: [0043], [0049-0050], [0053-0054], [0144], Fig. 32 regarding each module <100>, <18> having respective cabinet housings); access panels (see Ballantine: [0068], Fig. 6 regarding providing each module <100> or <18> with access panel on side facing) in the first outer housings for the first equipment unit are positioned under the second equipment unit; and access panels in the second outer housings for the second equipment unit are positioned above the first equipment unit (see Ballantine: [0060-0064], [0068], [0144-0145], Figs. 6, 32-33 and discussion of claims 1-2 regarding arrangement of modules in top and bottom rows, which would result in their respective access panels above/below units of the other row). See also the Conclusion below regarding further suggestions.
Re claim 5. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 2, wherein: each of the first inverter and the second inverter have a first rectangular footprint comprising: a first axis length and a second axis length; and each of the first transformer and the second transformer have a second rectangular footprint comprising: a third axis length and a fourth axis length; wherein: the first axis length and the third axis length are approximately equal; and the second axis length and the fourth axis length are together greater than the first axis length and the third axis length together (see Ballantine: [0043], [0049-0050], [0053-0054], [0144], Figs. 5, 32 regarding each module <100>, <18> having rectangular shape, such that they are roughly equal length front to back, and roughly two side by side widths are longer).
Re claim 6. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 1, wherein the support structure comprises: a platform (bases <20>) upon which the second inverter and the second transformer are positioned; and a plurality of posts (support pillars <3202>) connected to the platform configured to elevate the platform above the surface (see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32).
Re claim 7. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 6, wherein: the platform has a length greater than a combined length of the second inverter and the second transformer; and the platform has a width greater that a combined width of the second inverter and the second transformer (see Ballantine: [0144-0145], Figs. 32-33 regarding platform wider and long than modules).
Re claims 13-14. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 6, wherein the platform comprises a solid structure configured to mitigate arc flash hazard; wherein the platform is fabricated at least partially from concrete or steel plate (see Ballantine: [0142], [0144], Figs. 30, 32 regarding design of base structures supporting modules as concrete or steel; note mitigating arc flash hazard is recited as intended use and it is understood that solid concrete/steel inherently as disclosed would inherently provide this benefit).
Re claim 15. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 6, but does not explicitly discuss providing a ladder structure to reach the top row. Official Notice is hereby taken however that it is very well known in the art of stacked/elevated structures that access to the upper level may be by a ladder extending downward from the platform; and a cage at least partially surrounding the ladder, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for purposes of providing known means to conveniently and safely allow a person to access the upper level of the structure.
Re claim 16. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 6, but does not explicitly discuss providing safety railing/toe plates on the upper level. Official Notice is hereby taken however that it is very well known in the art of stacked/elevated structures to provide on upper levels a railing and a toe plate at least partially surrounding the platform, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for purposes of providing known safety means to prevent a person from easily falling off a higher level of the structure.
Re claim 17. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 6, wherein the plurality of posts allow access to all sides of the first equipment unit (see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32).
Re claim 18. Ballantine teaches a method of increasing energy storage capacity of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) (see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32; note Objection above regarding BESS structure, and also Ballantine: [0137], [0144] regarding some modules <100> being Co-Gen modules using battery cabinets; see also discussion of claim 1 above regarding similar claim limitations and obviousness reasoning), the method comprising:
building a support structure (support pillars <3202>, see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32 regarding support pillars for vertically positioning top row base <20> above bottom row modules) over a first inverter and transformer unit (inverter of a conditioning module <18> and transformer of a fuel cell module <100> on bottom row, see Ballantine: [0043], [0049], [0053-0054], [0144], Figs. 2-5, 32) installed at a first location of the BESS;
placing a second inverter and transformer unit (inverter of a conditioning module <18> and transformer of a fuel cell module <100> on top row, see Ballantine: [0043], [0049], [0053-0054], [0144], Figs. 2-5, 32) on the support structure such that the second inverter and transformer unit is longitudinally spaced from and laterally offset from the first inverter and transformer unit (see Ballantine: [0144], Fig. 32 regarding vertical spaced top row over bottom row; see discussion of claim 1 above regarding obviousness of arrangements having lateral offset); and
adding an additional battery container to the BESS (see Ballantine: [0061], [0063-0064], [0144], Fig. 32 regarding scaling to any number of fuel cell modules/co-gen modules <100> as well as servicing operations to remove and add modules, i.e. operations may include adding a co-gen module <100>/battery container to the system as desired). See Ballantine: [0043], [0049], [0053-0054], [0060-0064], [0137], [0144-0145], Figs. 1-5, 32, 33, and discussion of claim 1 above regarding similar limitations.
Re claim 19. Ballantine teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising: removing the second inverter and transformer unit from a second location of the BESS; and positioning the additional battery container at the second location (see Ballantine: [0061], [0063-0064], [0144], Fig. 32, and discussion of claim 1 regarding obviousness of scaling to any number of fuel cell modules/co-gen modules <100> and conditioning modules <18> able to be in any position, as well as servicing operations to remove and add modules, i.e. operations may include adding a co-gen module <100>/battery container to the system where the second inverter and transformer unit was previously removed from as desired).
Re claim 20. Ballantine teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising building the support structure to have a solid platform constructed of concrete or steel plate to provide arc flash protection between the first inverter and transformer unit and the second inverter and transformer unit (see Ballantine: [0142], [0144], Figs. 30, 32 regarding design of base structures supporting modules as concrete or steel; note mitigating arc flash hazard is recited as intended use and it is understood that solid concrete/steel inherently as disclosed would inherently provide this benefit).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantine in view of Lang (US2012/0286600).
Re claim 4. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 3, and generally discloses providing access panels but does not explicitly disclose providing a blowout panel. Lang, however, teaches that it is known in the art of power component boxes to design a cabinet for converter to comprise a blowout panel (see Lang: [0036], Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ballantine to incorporate the teachings of Lang by including a blowout panel in the power conditioning modules <18> for purposes of providing protection means in case of rapid pressure changes in the enclosure due to electric fault conditions (see Lang: [0036], Fig. 4). Although Ballantine in view of Lang does not explicitly disclose placing a blowout panel on top of the module, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to locate the panel on any side of the module since it has been held that generally a rearrangement of parts or particular placement of parts which do not modify the operation of the device is an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). One of ordinary skill would find it obvious as a matter of design choice and depending on the corresponding location of relevant components in the module to place a blowout panel nearby on an exposed surface of the module as appropriate. Note the combination would result in the blowout panel positioned at least partially under the second transformer based on the possible arrangements discussed with respect to claims 1-3.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantine in view of Yu (CN110620516A; specific reference is made to attached English machine translation).
Re claims 8-12. Ballantine teaches the BESS of claim 7, and generally discloses the modules comprising respective electrical connections/wires/cables to other modules as needed, including appropriate accommodations in base <20> for wires (see Ballantine: [0049], [0053-0054], Figs. 2, 5, 32 regarding description of electrical connections across row through base, i.e. cable raceways through skid). Although Ballantine does not explicitly discuss manner of connection between top and bottom row of modules with respect to Fig. 32, Yu, teaches that it is known in the art of stacked electronic modules to provide corresponding cables and raceways extending between top and bottom of a structure as needed for making electrical connections (see Yu: [43-47], Fig. 3a regarding providing respective conductors <8-10> between vertical levels). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ballantine to incorporate the teachings of Yu by providing respective cable connections and raceways with the base under the module and also between vertical levels for purposes of providing known electrical connection means between components located at different vertical levels (see Yu: [43-47], Fig. 3a). The combination would thereby result in a first cable raceway positioned underneath the platform; wherein the second inverter and the second transformer comprise cables extending from undersides of the second inverter and the second transformer; wherein the second skid includes internal passageways to allow for passage of at least some of the cables through the second skid; wherein the first cable raceway extends in a lateral direction; further comprising a second cable raceway; wherein: the first cable raceway is positioned underneath the platform below the second inverter; and the second cable raceway is positioned underneath the platform below the second transformer (see Ballantine: [0053-0054], Figs. 5, 32 regarding cable connections with the base, and Yu: [43-47], Fig. 3a regarding providing cables/cable raceways to extend below a floor surface to lower level).
Conclusion
In summary, it is recommended Applicant address the noted Objections and consider the cited prior art of record which appears to suggest that arrangement of inverter and transformer modules for power systems to be vertically stacked are generally known, with basic rearrangement/repositioning of modules being obvious to those of ordinary skill if there is no significant change in basic function/operation. It is recommended that Applicant consider providing further details related to the specific arrangement of Fig. 3B and claims 1-3 as potentially providing an arrangement that could be distinguished from similar prior art and having specific structure allowing for special functions beyond general rearrangement of parts (for example specifying direction/side of panels from having equipment rotated, direction of lateral offset, having corresponding open space/forbidding further equipment to allow access to the panel in the corresponding direction, etc.). Applicant is reminded that claim language is given broadest reasonable interpretation for purposes of examination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-7265. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DAVID A SHIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836