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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 3/13/2026 with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Numerical labels are not considered descriptive text labels. Examples of descriptive text labels include “string controller”, “external controller”, “battery monitoring module”, etc. Flowcharts such as Fig. 4 should be labeled with text describing the step, for example, “An output reference is provided to the string controller” in the box currently labeled “S1.”
Applicant's arguments, filed 3/13/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 30 and 44 under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument discussing ¶[117] of Vo which discusses round-robin selection, Examiner notes that ¶[177] was incorrectly cited as ¶[117]. The cited quote “In this method, a variable frequency is achieved by controlling the switching, and so any frequency may be generated (i.e. 60 Hz, 50 Hz, etc)” is from ¶[177].
Applicant argues that Vo teaching that modules have certain on-times as a result of generating a particular frequency, which differs from the claimed invention which enforces a minimum on time.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generating a particular frequency requires as shown in Fig. 17 requires enforcing a minimum on-time. In response to applicant's argument that Vo does not teach controlling the minimum on-time would result in reducing transients, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 (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 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) 30-42, 44-47 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vo et al. (US 20140312828 A1).
Regarding Claim 30, Vo teaches method of controlling an on-time of a plurality of energy modules of an energy storage (10, 20, n), the energy storage including a plurality of series connected energy modules (10, 20, n) forming an energy module string (Fig. 2),
wherein each of the individual energy modules are module being connected to the energy module string by a plurality of switches (11-14, 21-24) configured in an H-bridge (¶[84] “an energy module configuration based upon an inverted H-Bridge and will be designated as Energy Module-Inverted H-Bridge (or EM-IH)”),
wherein and the energy storage further including a string controller (string controller or group controller in Fig. 13), the method comprising:
controlling, via the string controller, which of the individual energy modules is part of a current path through the energy module string, by control of a status of the respective plurality of the switches (¶[136] “The Group Controller would simply be an extension of the microcontroller that's demonstrated in FIG. 12 but instead with Power Switch Control signals (also referred to as an Energy Module's gate drive signals) for each Energy Module within the Group)”;
controlling, via the string controller, a frequency of an energy module string voltage according to an electric system reference of a system to which the energy storage is connected (¶[173] “Based upon the external applications energy requirement, the Master Controller will work together with its lower management levels (e.g. Parallel String Controller, String Controller, etc. . . . ) in order to determine the status of the Internal Energy Storage Devices within the pack of Energy Modules”; see Fig. 15);
and controlling, via the string controller, including adjusting a sequence of the respective plurality of switches of the individual energy modules so that each of the individual energy modules that are required to be included in the current path (Fig. 5A-5C) to establish the energy modules string voltage are included in the current path for at least a predetermined minimum on-time (see Fig. 17, where cells have minimum on-times in order to produce certain frequencies; ¶[177] “In this method, a variable frequency is achieved by controlling the switching, and so any frequency may be generated (i.e. 60 Hz, 50 Hz, etc)”), thereby reducing transients among the plurality of energy modules (intended effect of the minimum on-time).
Regarding Claim 31, Vo teaches the method according to claim 30.
Vo further teaches wherein the string controller is establishing the on-time of the individual energy modules dynamically according to a dynamic performance evaluation of the plurality of energy modules of the energy module string (¶[179] “This balancing algorithm takes each energy storage devices' voltage, temperature, and operating current as an input and outputs a battery health index and the available energy. Using the output information, the management algorithm ranks the batteries and puts them into the organized slots to maximize the health and longevity of the entire "power supply" (battery Pack)”).
Regarding Claim 32, Vo teaches the method according to claim 31.
Vo further teaches wherein the string controller performs the dynamic performance evaluation prior to each turning on of an energy storage module (Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 33, Vo teaches the method according to claim 31.
Vo further teaches wherein the dynamic performance evaluation includes sorting the plurality of energy modules into a dynamic performance list (¶[179] “This balancing algorithm takes each energy storage devices' voltage, temperature, and operating current as an input and outputs a battery health index and the available energy. Using the output information, the management algorithm ranks the batteries and puts them into the organized slots to maximize the health and longevity of the entire "power supply" (battery Pack)”).
Regarding Claim 34, Vo teaches the method according to claim 33.
Vo further teaches wherein the sorting the plurality of energy modules into the dynamic performance list is based on at least one energy module parameter of a list including: on-time, state of charge, state of health, temperature, or internal resistance (¶[179] “This balancing algorithm takes each energy storage devices' voltage, temperature, and operating current as an input and outputs a battery health index and the available energy”).
Regarding Claim 35, Vo teaches the method according to claim 31.
Vo further teaches wherein the dynamic performance evaluation includes sorting the plurality of energy modules according to at least one of: state of charge, state of health, or temperature of the plurality of energy modules (¶[179] “This balancing algorithm takes each energy storage devices' voltage, temperature, and operating current as an input and outputs a battery health index and the available energy”).
Regarding Claim 36, Vo teaches the method according to claim 35.
Vo further teaches wherein the dynamic performance evaluation further includes selecting which energy module is to be connected next to the current path to comply with at least one condition of a plurality of conditions including: minimum on-time, minimum temperature, able to be charge, or able to be discharged (¶[179] “That is, an Energy Module containing an energy storage device with a lower state of charge will be switched out from the Pack and utilized less than Energy Modules with higher charged energy storage devices” fulfills the ‘able to be discharged’ limitation).
Regarding Claim 37, Vo teaches the method according to claim 30.
Vo further teaches controlling via the string controller, an amplitude of the energy module string voltage according to input received from controllers external to the energy module string (¶[173] “Based upon the external applications energy requirement, the Master Controller will work together with its lower management levels (e.g. Parallel String Controller, String Controller, etc. . . . ) in order to determine the status of the Internal Energy Storage Devices within the pack of Energy Modules”, see also Fig. 17 for varying voltage).
Regarding Claim 38, Vo teaches the method according to claim 31.
Vo further teaches wherein the dynamic performance evaluation includes a wear evaluation established by the string controller based on historic data of use of the energy modules (¶[179] “This balancing algorithm takes each energy storage devices' voltage, temperature, and operating current as an input and outputs a battery health index and the available energy. Using the output information, the management algorithm ranks the batteries and puts them into the organized slots to maximize the health and longevity of the entire "power supply" (battery Pack). Similarly, additional sensors can be added to aid the core control and management system such as gas monitoring, cell expansion, etc.”; gas and cell expansion are signs of wear).
Regarding Claim 39, Vo teaches the method according to claim 30.
Vo further teaches wherein the energy storage comprises further includes at least two energy module strings, each controlled by a string controller (Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 40, Vo teaches the method according to claim 30.
Vo further teaches wherein the energy storage further includes an energy storage controller communicating with the string controller (see Fig. 14), and
wherein the energy storage controller is configured to establish an active power reference or a reactive power reference based on a measured electric system reference and to provide the established active or reactive power reference to the string controller (¶[173] “Based upon the external applications energy requirement, the Master Controller will work together with its lower management levels (e.g. Parallel String Controller, String Controller, etc. . . . ) in order to determine the status of the Internal Energy Storage Devices within the pack of Energy Modules”, see also Fig. 17 for varying voltage).
Regarding Claim 41, Vo teaches the method according to claim 34.
Vo further teaches wherein the string controller is configured to calculate a sequence in which the energy modules are turned on and turned off based on the dynamic performance list of the plurality of energy modules (¶[179] “This balancing algorithm takes each energy storage devices' voltage, temperature, and operating current as an input and outputs a battery health index and the available energy. Using the output information, the management algorithm ranks the batteries and puts them into the organized slots to maximize the health and longevity of the entire "power supply" (battery Pack)”).
Regarding Claim 42, Vo teaches the method according to claim 41.
Vo further teaches wherein the string controller is further configured to control the sequence in which the energy modules are turned on and turned off so that each energy module in the sequence complies with at least one of: a condition above a minimum on-time, or a condition below a maximum temperature (¶[173] “If at any time, any of the Group Controller's detect an over temperature (higher temperature than recommended by Energy Storage Device manufacturer's ratings), overvoltage (higher voltage than recommended), or an overcurrent (higher current than what is recommended being drawn from Internal Energy Storage Device), a fault condition will be signaled”).
Regarding Claim 44, Vo teaches an energy storage comprising:
an energy module string (Fig. 2) including a plurality of energy modules (10, 20, n),
each of the plurality of energy modules (10, 20, n), including four switches (111-14, 21-24) forming an H-bridge (¶[84] “an energy module configuration based upon an inverted H-Bridge and will be designated as Energy Module-Inverted H-Bridge (or EM-IH)”), and a midpoint of the H-bridges of at least two energy modules being electrically connected, thereby establishing the energy module string (Fig. 2),
and a string controller (string controller or group controller in Fig. 13) configured to control a status of the four switches of the H-bridge and thereby a current path through the energy module string (Fig. 5A-5C) so that individual energy modules are turned on for at least a predetermined minimum on-time (see Fig. 17, where cells have minimum on-times in order to produce certain frequencies; ¶[177] “In this method, a variable frequency is achieved by controlling the switching, and so any frequency may be generated (i.e. 60 Hz, 50 Hz, etc)”), the control including adjusting a sequence of the four switches (see ¶[84] quoted above), thereby reducing transients among the plurality of energy modules (intended effect of the minimum on-time).
Regarding Claim 45, Vo teaches the energy storage according to claim 44.
Vo further teaches wherein the string controller is configured to control the on-time of the individual energy modules differently in two subsequent periods of an AC voltage output from the energy storage string (see Fig. 17, where the on-time of the modules is varied to give different voltages).
Regarding Claim 46, Vo teaches the energy storage according to claim 44.
Vo further teaches wherein the string controller is configured to calculate a sequence in which energy modules of the plurality of energy modules are turned on and turned off based on a performance evaluation of the plurality of energy modules (¶[179] “an Energy Module containing an energy storage device with a lower state of charge will be switched out from the Pack and utilized less than Energy Modules with higher charged energy storage devices. This is continued until the lowest charged Energy Module is no longer the lowest charged … the management algorithm ranks the batteries and puts them into the organized slots to maximize the health and longevity of the entire "power supply" (battery Pack)”)
Regarding Claim 47, Vo teaches the energy storage according to claim 44.
Vo further teaches wherein the string controller is configured to determine a sequence in which energy modules of the plurality of energy modules are turned on and turned off based on a dynamic performance list of the plurality of energy modules (¶[179] “an Energy Module containing an energy storage device with a lower state of charge will be switched out from the Pack and utilized less than Energy Modules with higher charged energy storage devices. This is continued until the lowest charged Energy Module is no longer the lowest charged … the management algorithm ranks the batteries and puts them into the organized slots to maximize the health and longevity of the entire "power supply" (battery Pack)”)
Regarding Claim 49, Vo teaches the energy storage according to claim 44.
Vo further teaches wherein the energy module string is a first energy module string,
and wherein the energy storage further comprises at least a second energy module string (Fig. 14).
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 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) 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vo et al. (US 20140312828 A1) in view of McMurray (US 3581212 A).
Regarding Claim 51, Vo teaches the method according to claim 30.
Vo does not teach wherein the adjusting of the sequence of the respective plurality of switches, as controlled by the string controller, turns off the respective plurality of switches of the individual energy modules in a sequence that is different from a reversed turn on sequence.
McMurray teaches h wherein the adjusting of the sequence of the respective plurality of switches (switches shown in Fig. 4), as controlled by the string controller, turns off the respective plurality of switches of the individual energy modules (11a-11c) in a sequence that is different from a reversed turn on sequence (see Fig. 6c, where the modules are turned on in the order: 11a, 11b, 11c and turned off in the order: 11a, 11b, 11c. The reversed turn on order would be: 11c, 11b, 11a).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vo to incorporate the teachings of McMurray to provide wherein the adjusting of the sequence of the respective plurality of switches, as controlled by the string controller, turns off the respective plurality of switches of the individual energy modules in a sequence that is different from a reversed turn on sequence, in order to balance the usage of the modules as suggested by McMurray ([Col 8, Lines 33-34]).
Regarding Claim 52, Vo teaches the method according to claim 30.
Vo does not teach wherein the adjusting of the sequence of the respective plurality of switches, as controlled by the string controller, establishes an AC waveform by controlling the respective plurality of switches of the individual energy modules so that the first energy module that is turned off is different from the last energy module that is turned on.
McMurray teaches wherein the adjusting of the sequence of the respective plurality of switches (switches shown in Fig. 4), as controlled by the string controller, establishes an AC waveform by controlling the respective plurality of switches of the individual energy modules so that the first energy module (Module 11a) that is turned off is different from the last energy module that is turned on (Module 11c) (see Fig. 6c, [Col 8 Lines 18-23] “In control sequence II, FIG. 6c, the modules are selected on a first-in, first-out basis. In contradistinction to control sequence I, the modules remain energized at a particular output level for equal amounts of time. In both control sequences I and II, each step level is cyclically rotated from one module to the next”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vo to incorporate the teachings of McMurray to provide wherein the adjusting of the sequence of the respective plurality of switches (switches shown in Fig. 4), as controlled by the string controller, establishes an AC waveform by controlling the respective plurality of switches of the individual energy modules so that the first energy module (Module 11a) that is turned off is different from the last energy module that is turned on, in order to use the modules in a balanced manner.
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 AIMAN BICKIYA whose telephone number is (571)270-0555. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 6 PM EST.
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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859