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 .
Acknowledgment is made of application #18/599,527 filed on 02/24/2023 in which claims 1-20 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5,7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0265710 A1 to Muenzel et al., (Muenzel)(now USPAT 12,062,815).
Regarding claim 1: Muenzel at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 and 7: A battery system(100,200,300,700), said system comprising: multiple electrochemical units(C1-C6)(see ¶[0177]) for receiving, storing, and providing electricity(¶[0176]); and mode-transitioning means(switches S1…S16) for enabling said system to selectively and temporarily reconfigure its electrical connections and thereby switch from, to, among, or between series mode(in this present case, the switching assemblies are operatively configured to selectively allow operating in a plurality of states in which any two or more battery cell units are connected in series; see ¶[0188]), parallel mode, or series-parallel mode for charging or discharging purposes(¶[0047],¶[0188]-¶[0193],¶[0201])note-the series connection of two or more transistors increases the switch terminal voltage capability. Other series and parallel combinations of transistors can be implemented to improve current and/or voltage conduction capability as desired), said mode-transitioning means encompassing at least two current-regulating devices(switches S1….S6)(see Fig. 7), wherein the ratio of said current-regulating devices to said electrochemical units is under 3:1, respectively(note- In the battery system 700, the switches are arranged in such a way that for at least one switching state, a battery cell unit can be coupled to an adjacent battery cell unit with at most two closed switches in the current path connecting the two adjacent battery cell units. In addition, the system 700 allows a battery cell unit to be coupled to an adjacent or non-adjacent cell unit with at most two closed switches in the current path. Which is equivalent to 2 switches:1 cell which is less than or is under 3:1; see ¶[0185]).
Accordingly claim 1 is anticipated.
Regarding claim 2, Muenzel discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 and 7: A battery system(100,200,300,700)(see Figs. 1-3 and 7), said system comprising: multiple electrochemical units(C1-C6)(see ¶[0177]) for receiving, storing, and providing electricity; an integrated network of conductors(118a-118c)(see ¶[0050],¶[0079],¶[0133],¶[0188] and Fig. 1) for carrying and transmitting electricity(see ¶[0177]), wherein said conductors are in communication with the electrochemical units(C1…C6) via two or more connection modes(series, parallel)(see ¶[0101]), said connection modes being selected from the group consisting of series(in this present case, the switching assemblies are operatively configured to selectively allow operating in a plurality of states in which any two or more battery cell units are connected in series; see ¶[0188]), parallel, and series-parallel connections; and current-regulating devices(switches S1….S6)(see Fig. 7) for controlling the path of electricity through the network of conductors(passive components; see ¶[0050]) and thereby controlling whether the electrochemical units are connected in series mode(¶[0047],¶[0188]-¶[0193],¶[0201])note-the series connection of two or more transistors increases the switch terminal voltage capability. Other series and parallel combinations of transistors can be implemented to improve current and/or voltage conduction capability as desired), parallel mode, or series-parallel mode, wherein the ratio of said current-regulating devices to said electrochemical units is under 3:1(note- In the battery system 700, the switches are arranged in such a way that for at least one switching state, a battery cell unit can be coupled to an adjacent battery cell unit with at most two closed switches in the current path connecting the two adjacent battery cell units. In addition, the system 700 allows a battery cell unit to be coupled to an adjacent or non-adjacent cell unit with at most two closed switches in the current path. Which is equivalent to 2 switches:1 cell which is less than or is under 3:1; see ¶[0185]), respectively; and wherein changes in connection mode will have an impact on the systemic electrical characteristics of the battery system(¶[0200],¶[0227],¶[0254] and ¶[0292]).
Regarding claim 3, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said network of conductors comprises one or more metallic wires(118a-118c)(see ¶[0050],¶[0079],¶[0133],¶[0188] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said network of conductors comprises one or more metallic rails(see ¶[0050]).
Regarding claim 5, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said network of conductors comprises one or more metallic circuit-board traces(¶[0051],¶[0161]).
Regarding claim 7, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said electrochemical units comprise one or more single-cell containers(see housing 400; of Fig. 4 and ¶[0159]).
Regarding claim 8, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said electrochemical units comprise one or more multi-cell containers(404)(see Fig. 4 and ¶[0159]).
Regarding claim 9, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said electrochemical units comprise one or more multi-cell modules(702,704,703)(see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said electrochemical units comprise one or more multi-cell packs(702 contains cells C1 and C2; module 704 contains cells C3 and C4; module 703 contains cells C5 and C6; see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said current-regulating devices comprise one or more mechanical switches(¶[0078]).
Regarding claim 12, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said current-regulating devices comprise one or more transistors(see ¶[0037],¶[0054]),¶[0078],¶[0081]).
Regarding claim 14, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said current-regulating devices comprise one or more relays(see ¶[0070],¶[0078]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2021/0265710 A1 to Muenzel et al., (Muenzel)(now USPAT 12,062,815).
Regarding claim 6, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Muenzel further discloses, wherein said network of conductors comprises an air-based induction medium(see ¶[0050]).
Although some inductors are air based induction medium, that is with air-core, Muenzel does not expressly disclose that the passive element which includes inductor are of an air-based induction medium.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an air-core inductor as one of the passive element or conductor in order to allow operation at high frequencies and reduction of energy losses as is well known in the art. It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the use of air-core or air-based induction medium as material in the network of conductors of Muenzel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Accordingly claim 6 would have been obvious.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0265710 A1 to Muenzel et al., (Muenzel)(now USPAT 12,062,815) in view of Burns USPAT 6,983,212 B2.
Regarding claim 15, Muenzel does not expressly disclose the limitations of, “wherein said current-regulating devices comprise one or more parts of an auxiliary, master, or supervisory battery-management system or appliance”.
However, Burns discloses, factual evidence of, wherein said current-regulating devices(selection switches 200)(see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 12-63 and col. 4, lines 34-67) comprise one or more parts of an auxiliary, master, or supervisory battery-management system or appliance(management of stationary batteries in standby applications for the purpose of monitoring and alarming critical battery parameters, extending battery life and improving the reliability of critical power loads).
Muenzel and Burns are battery management analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muenzel with the teachings of Burns by having, wherein said current-regulating devices comprise one or more parts of an auxiliary, master, or supervisory battery-management system or appliance, as recited, for the advantages of monitoring and alarming critical battery parameters, extending battery life and improving the reliability of critical power loads, as per the teachings of Burns (col. 3, lines 59-63)
Accordingly claim 15 would have been obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0265710 A1 to Muenzel et al., (Muenzel)(now USPAT 12,062,815) in view of Canter USPAT 6,844,703
Regarding claim 13, Muenzel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2 but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of, “wherein said current-regulating devices comprise one or more rectifiers”.
In the same field of endeavor, namely battery cell management system, Canter discloses factual evidence of, wherein said current-regulating devices comprise one or more rectifiers(34/48)(note- The pair of diodes 48 perform as rectifiers preventing current flow to associated cells 32 when voltage differential across each diode 48 is below a corresponding diode forward bias voltage (see abstract and col. 3, lines 23-43; Fig. 2).
Muenzel and Canter are battery management and balancing analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muenzel with the teachings of Burns by having said current-regulating devices comprise one or more rectifiers, as taught by Canter, in order to allow preferential charging by the transformer/rectifier circuits by preventing current flow to associated cells when voltage differential across each diode 48 is below a corresponding diode forward bias voltage (Canter; col. 3, lines 40-43 and 53-56).
Accordingly claim 13 would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record either taken alone or in combination thereof fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in the claimed combination, wherein said system is utilized to implement, or is subjected to, the following operational processes: increasing the number of series-connected units by selectively routing electricity through the network of conductors and thereby altering the systemic electrical characteristics of the electrochemical units; applying charging current to the electrochemical units using an external power source; ceasing the application of charging current after the electrochemical units reach required or preferred capacity levels; and decreasing the number of series-connected units by selectively routing electricity through the network of conductors and thereby altering the systemic electrical characteristics of the electrochemical units.
Claims 17-19 depend directly from claim 16 and thus are also allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, patentability exists at least in part with the claimed limitations of, wherein said system is utilized to implement, or is subjected to, the following operational processes: monitoring and measuring the voltage level of one or more electrochemical units, said monitoring and measuring occurring at some point during the discharge phase; increasing the number of series-connected electrochemical units by selectively routing electricity through the network of conductors and thereby altering the systemic electrical characteristics of the electrochemical units, wherein said increase in series-connected units occurs after the voltage measurement reaches or drops below some predetermined level; and repeating the foregoing steps if necessary or desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9:00AM-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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 November 26, 2025