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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a series of operational concepts” and “according to the discharge recognition”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim as written states “a power management system (PMS) recognizes discharging of the battery cells of the first groups through the first PCS during the discharging process, and outputting an energy storage command for storing the discharged energy of the battery cells of the first ground in the plurality of batteries”, however, there is no recitation in the claim which indicates the energy storage command is in sequence, or in response, to the recognition step.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that Kim-2’s discharge command is not the same as an energy storage command. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited in the argument, Kim-2’s PMS 101 “establishes a charge/discharge strategy of the battery modules 107 and 109” and battery 117, contained in module 109, “is charged and discharged” and battery 111, contained in module 107, “serves to fill irregular power surplus … and performs charging”. Therefore Kim-2 is teaching a discharge command, relating to the discharging of battery/module 117/109, and an energy storage command, relating to the charging of battery/module 111/107, transmitted by the PMS.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo et al. (USPGPN 2021/0249707 – filed 2018), in view of Koo et al. (WIPO Publication WO 2022/186524 – filed Feb. 3, 2021), Kim (US Patent 5,432,363 A – hereinafter referred to as Kim-2), and Kim et al. (Korean Patent Publication KR 20180090673 A – hereinafter referred to as Kim-2).
Regarding Claim 1, Zuo (Figs.1 & 2) teaches a system for charging and discharging a battery, comprising:
a battery charging-discharging device (100) performing a charging process and a discharging process (S202: first battery pack discharges to the energy storage device, S208: first battery is charged by the energy storage device) of a plurality of battery cells (By definition, Merriam-Webster, a battery may be a group of two or more cells) for each of a first group (21) and a second group (31); and
an energy storage device (11), during the discharging process of the battery cells of the first group, storing a discharged energy of the battery cells of the first group in a plurality of batteries (S202: first battery discharges to the energy storage device), and, during the charging process of the battery cells of the second group, supplying energy stored in the plurality of batteries to the battery cells of the second group (S204: energy storage device discharges to the second battery),
Zuo fails to explicitly teach wherein the system is configured to charge and discharge the battery cells as a part of an activation process in a battery manufacturing process for increasing a capacity of the plurality of battery cells,
wherein the energy storage device comprises, a first power conversion system (PCS) for converting AC power into DC power, and supplying the converted DC power to the battery charging-discharging device,
wherein the energy storage device, further comprises, a power management system (PMS) for recognizing discharging of the battery cells of the first group through the first PCS during the discharging process, and outputting an energy storage command.
However, Koo teaches a process for activating a battery in a manufacturing process (¶44: when the secondary battery is manufactured, an activation process of charging and discharging the battery is performed) by charging and discharging a battery (Fig.3 & 4: secondary battery 300 is charged by energy storage unit 150 and discharged back into energy storage unit 150), and a first PCS (Fig.2, 120) for converting AC power (Fig.2, 200) into DC power (¶74, converter 120 converts AC to DC), and supplying the converted DC power to a battery charging-discharging device (130 & 150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Zuo with Koo to utilize the charging and discharging of a battery for activating a battery in a battery manufacturing process and to include a PCS for converting AC power to DC power, and supplying the DC power to the battery charging-discharging device. Doing so allows you reduce the power consumed in the process and increase energy efficiency and would allow for the device to use an externally connected power for charging a battery when the energy storage unit cannot fully charge the battery, as evidenced by Koo (¶81).
Moreover, Kim-1 teaches that it is common in the art to perform an activation process on batteries, which includes charging and discharging batteries (Abstract: batteries are activated by repeatedly performing charging and discharging; Col.7, Lines 32-35: it may be assumed that the charging and discharging cycle is performed twice), to increase a capacity of the battery (Col.8, Lines 42-46: attain a maximum charging capacity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Zuo with Kim-1 to perform the activation process of the battery to increase a capacity of the battery. Doing so would allow for the battery to have its maximum charging capacity regardless of the initial condition of the battery, as evidenced by Kim-1.
Lastly, Kim-2 teaches a power management system (PMS) (Fig.2, 101) for recognizing discharging of the battery cells of the first group through the first PCS during the discharging process, and outputting an energy storage command (Page 3, ¶10: PMS transmits charge/discharge commands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Zuo with Kim-2 to include a power management system. Doing so allows the system to improve efficiency in charging and discharging the batteries, as evidenced by Kim-2.
Regarding Claim 2, Zuo, as modified, further teaches wherein the battery charging-discharging device, comprises a distribution board (Fig.1, wiring connections between 11 and 14/17)
Zuo, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery charging-discharging device, comprises
DC-DC converters connected to the distribution board in parallel,
wherein the distribution board distributes the DC power supplied from the first PCS to the battery cells of the first group through the DC-DC converters.
However, Kim-2 teaches wherein the battery charging-discharging device, comprises DC-DC converters (Fig.2, 115 & 121) connected to the distribution board in parallel,
wherein the distribution board (600) distributes the DC power supplied from the first PCS to the battery cells of the first group through the DC-DC converters (Page 5, ¶3: DC/DC converters convert power from PCS 103 through DC-link 600).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, and Kim-2, with Kim-2, to include DC-DC converters connected to the distribution board in parallel for the connecting the first and second battery cell groups. Doing so allows for the system to provide voltage conversion to allow for different voltage ratings between the distribution board and the connected first and second battery cell groups.
Regarding Claim 11, Zuo, as modified, further teaches wherein the charging process and the discharging process are included in an activation process for the plurality of battery cells (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 12, Zuo, as modified, further teaches wherein the battery charging-discharging device activates the plurality of battery cells by repeatedly performing the charging process and the discharging process several times (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above – batteries are activated by repeated charging/discharging).
Regarding Claim 13, Zuo, as modified, further teaches wherein the energy storage device comprises a first power conversion system for converting AC power into DC power, and supplying the converted DC power to the battery charging-discharging device (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above – first PCS), and
the energy storage device is configured to supply the converted DC power during the activation process to increase the capacity of the plurality of battery cells (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 14, Zuo, as modified, further teaches wherein the battery charging-discharging device reuses the discharged energy from the battery cells (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above – first battery pack discharges tot eh energy storage device which discharges to the second battery pack).
Regarding Claim 15, Zuo, as modified, further teaches wherein the battery charging-discharging device stores the discharged energy from a first group of the battery cells and reuses the discharged energy stored in the first group of the battery cells to charge a second group of the battery cells (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above – first battery pack discharges to the energy storage device which discharges to the second battery pack).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, and Kim-2, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Toya et al. (USPGPN 20150333544).
Regarding Claim 4, Zuo, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the energy storage device, further comprises, an energy management system (EMS), when the PMS monitors a status whether or not the first PCS is operating normally, and outputs the same, storing the status whether or not the first PCS is operating normally and displays the same.
However, Kim-2 teaches an energy management system (EMS) (Fig.2, 200), when the PMS monitors a status whether or not the first PCS is operating normally, and outputs the same (Page 6, ¶9: failure mode is communicated if a fault is determined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, and Kim-2, with Kim-2 to include an energy management system. Doing so allows the system to improve efficiency in charging and discharging the batteries, as evidenced by Kim-2.
Moreover, Toya teaches an energy storage system which includes a display (Fig.2, 102) that can display errors (¶0066: error displays).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, and Kim-2, with Toya to include a display unit. Doing so would allow for errors to be displayed to a user providing a visual indication of a fault in the system so that it could be promptly remedied.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, and Kim-2, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Robinson et al. (USPGPN 20130342011).
Regarding Claim 5, Zuo, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the energy storage device, further comprises, a second power conversion system (PCS) storing discharged energy of the battery cells of the first group in the plurality of batteries, according to the energy storage command of the PMS.
However, Robinson teaches a battery conversion system which uses a DC bus (Fig.4, 410) and PCSs (Fig.4, 440 & 442) for battery connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, and Kim-2, with Robinson to include a second PCS between the distribution board and the plurality of batteries bank to allow for potential power conversion needed between the batteries and the distribution board (Abstract: determining if external power device requires conversion to the power bus and if not, configuring the power converter for suitable conversion).
Regarding Claims 6 & 7, Zuo, as modified, further teaches wherein the energy storage device, further comprises, a battery management system (BMS) (Fig.1, 19) for monitoring a status of the plurality of batteries (¶0085: when the energy storage device reaches an energy requirement indicating monitoring), outputting status information according to the monitoring result, and controlling charging and discharging of the plurality of batteries (¶0085: switching devices are controlled in response to monitoring),
Zuo, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the PMS is configured to receive the status information from the BMS, and output the energy storage command to the second PCS, when the status of the plurality of batteries are in a chargeable state.
However, Kim-2 teaches a BMS (Page 3, ¶10: BMS 105 outputs battery information to PMS 101) communicating with a PMS which control the PCS (Page 3, ¶10: PMS 101 transmits control commands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, Kim-2, and Robinson, with Kim-2 to configure the PMS to receive information from the BMS, and output commands to the PCS when the plurality of batteries are in a chargeable or dischargeable state. Doing so allows the system to improve efficiency in charging and discharging the batteries, as evidenced by Kim-2.
Claim(s) 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, and Kim-2, as applied to the rejection of claim 2 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (USPGPN 20220185148 – hereinafter Kim-3).
Regarding Claims 8 & 9, Zuo, as modified, further teaches wherein the battery charging-discharging device, further comprises, a manufacturing execution system (MES) (Fig.1, 19) for transmitting a charging initiation command.
Zuo, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the battery charging-discharging device further comprising: charging-discharging controllers for controlling the DC-DC converters and wherein the plurality of charging-discharging controllers are configured to control an operation of the DC-DC converters in response to the charging-discharging initiation command.
However, Kim-3 teaches a plurality of DC/DC converters (Fig.1, 110) which each have a charging-discharging controller (Fig.1, 141), which control the operation of the DC-DC converters in response to a central command (¶0059, control unit 141 controls DC-DC converter based on commands from integrated control unit 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, and Kim-2, with Kim-3 to include individual charging-discharging controllers to control the DC-DC converters when commanded. Providing individual controllers allows for other DC-DC converters to still be controlled if one of the control units fails.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim, Kim-2, and Kim-3, as applied to the rejection of claim 9 above, and further in view of Robinson.
Regarding Claim 10, Zuo, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the PMS is configured to output the energy storage command or an energy discharging command according to the status of the plurality of batteries; and
the system further comprises a second power conversion system, according to the energy storage command or the energy discharging command of the PMS, storing discharged energy of the battery cells of the first group in the plurality of batteries, or supplying the energy stored in the plurality of batteries in the battery cells of the second group.
However, Kim-2 teaches a power management system (PMS) for outputting an energy storage command or an energy discharging command (Fig.2, 101; Page 3, ¶10: PMS transmits charge/discharge commands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, Kim-2, & Kim-3, with Kim-2 to include the power management system for outputting an energy storage command. Doing so allows the system to improve efficiency in charging and discharging the batteries, as evidenced by Kim-2.
Moreoever, Kim-3 teaches that controlling the charge or discharge is based on the state of a battery (Fig.8), and that the state of a battery includes either a maximum charge or discharge level (¶0111: maximum chargeable or dischargeable level for a battery pack).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, Kim-2, and Kim-3, with Kim-3 to further include a maximum chargeable or dischargeable level for determining the charging or discharging command to avoid overcharging or over-discharging a battery thus avoiding unnecessary battery deterioration.
Lastly, Robinson teaches a battery conversion system which uses a DC bus (Fig.4, 410) and PCSs (Fig.4, 440 & 442) for battery connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Zuo, in view of Koo, Kim-1, Kim-2, and Kim-3, with Johnson to include a second PCS between the distribution board and the plurality of batteries bank to account for potential power conversion needed between the batteries and the distribution board, as taught by Robinson (Abstract: determining if external power device requires conversion to the power bus and if not, configuring the power converter for suitable conversion).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859