DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are still pending, with claims 1 and 11 being currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 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 21-24, 26-30, 31-34 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao US PGPUB 2015/0158392 in view of Kirleis et al. US PGPUB 2020/0274371 and further in view of Amarasekara et al. US PGPUB 2017/0110901.
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Zhao discloses a system [fig. 1], the system comprising:
a charging component [fig. 1 & 7; an external charger 720 can connect to the battery pack for charging, the charging is controlled (allowed/prevented) via the onboard MCU; par. 16 & 100-101] external to an electric aircraft and configured to provide electrical energy to the electric aircraft [fig. 7; pars. 100-101; the charger can be “external”, thus the charger charges the battery pack and through the battery pack provides electrical energy to the electric aircraft, furthermore “the power supply pack may be configured so that it can be connected to a charger while also connected to the movable object” (par. 100)];
a battery pack disposed in an electric aircraft [fig.1, 21; par. 70] and configured to power one or more propulsors, the battery pack selectively connected to the charging component [fig. 1 & 7; the battery pack connects to both the external charger and MCU; par. 72; a an electronic switch controls charge and discharge of the battery, thus selectively connects the battery pack to the charging component; par. 100, furthermore, the charger can be external thus the battery is selectively connected to the charging component when the user connects it to the charger], wherein each battery pack includes a plurality of battery modules, wherein each battery module includes a plurality of battery cells [par. 57-58 & 71; the battery pack can have a plurality of cells with balancing circuits, including multiple units (modules) of cells (par. 71)];
wherein each of the plurality of battery packs includes a pack monitoring unit that includes a controller [pars. 57-58 & 64; the battery pack can contain the circuitry for balancing and protection, thus a controller and monitor, as well as power/voltage measurement (par. 64)] and each of the plurality of battery modules includes a module monitor unit [fig. 7; par. 107-108; AD’s 760-770 each monitor the voltage of at least one cell], the controllers of the pack monitoring units are each communicatively connected to corresponding ones of the plurality of module monitor units disposed in a corresponding battery pack [pars. 57-58, 64 & 107-108; each pack can have a controller that controls the balancing based on the voltage signals, thus based on detected voltages from each of the monitor units], wherein each of the module monitor units monitors an operating condition of at least one battery cell [fig. 7; pars. 107-108], wherein each module monitor unit includes a sensor [fig. 1, voltage detection sensor, shunt resistor; fig. 7, temperature sensor RT1; pars. 9, 84, 107-108 & 110], wherein the sensor is configured to
detect at least a measured charger datum of at least one battery cell [pars. 9, 84 & 110; voltage and current can be measured, which are charger data]; and
generate a sensor datum as a function of the at least a measured charger datum [pars. 9, 32, 62, 64, 80, 84-86, 101 & 110; data representing the current, voltage and temperature are measured to create data which is used to compare with thresholds],
wherein the module monitor unit transmits the measured charger datum to the controller of the corresponding pack monitoring unit [pars. 57-58, 64 & 107-108; each pack can have a controller that controls the balancing based on the voltage signals, thus based on detected voltages from each of the monitor units] and, wherein each of the controllers is configured to:
identify a fault element as a function of the sensor datum [pars. 5, 16, 101 & 106; faults including short circuit, overcharge and over discharge or a temperature issue];
determine a disruption element as a function of the identification of the fault element [pars. 5, 16, 101 & 106; faults including short circuit, overcharge and over discharge or a temperature issue; based on which threshold is crossed, the disruption element may be the current, voltage or temperature];
initiate a shutdown protocol of the charging as a function of the disruption element [pars. 9, 32, 62, 64, 80, 84-86, 101, 107 & 110; if a threshold indicating a fault and particular disruption element is crossed then charging is stopped].
Zhao does not explicitly disclose a plurality of interchangeable battery packs.
However, Kirleis discloses a UAV battery system comprising a plurality of interchangeable battery packs [fig. 2; pars. 85-86; a plurality of battery pack assemblies 202, identical, thus interchangeable].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao to further include a plurality of interchangeable battery packs for the purpose of allowing scalability, as taught by Kirleis (pars. 85-86).
The combination of Zhao and Kirleis does not explicitly disclose initiating a shutdown protocol of the external charging component as a function of the disruption element.
However, Amarasekara discloses a UAV charging system which initiates a shutdown protocol of the external charging component as a function of the disruption element [fig. 1; pars. 62-63; if the device 180 (UAV) detects that the polarity is reversed, it can notify the external charging device (RCE 380), which will then turn off the voltage (shutdown protocol); furthermore the deice 180 can signal completion of the charging cycle which initiates shutdown (par. 58 & 64)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhao and Kirleis to further include initiating a shutdown protocol of the external charging component as a function of the disruption element for the purpose of preventing out-of-limit and reverse polarity conditions, as taught by Amarasekara (par. 31).
wherein the controller comprises an authentication module that is configured to authenticate the electric aircraft through a connection to the charging component; and the fault element comprises denying access of the electric aircraft to the charging component as a function of the authentication module [par. 55 & 58; authenticating the UAV 140 via a handshake process, the authentication is required to provide power, thus otherwise access is denied].
Regarding claim 31, the method steps disclosed therein are deemed as being inherent in the assembly and operation of the prior art, since the prior art of record herein is construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements as recited in the method claim, as pointed out in regard to claim 1. The claim is accordingly rejected.
Regarding claims 22 and 32, the combination of Zhao and Kirleis does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller comprises an authentication module that is configured to authenticate the electric aircraft through a connection to the charging component; and the fault element comprises denying access of the electric aircraft to the charging component as a function of the authentication module.
However, Amarasekara discloses a UAV charging system wherein the controller comprises an authentication module that is configured to authenticate the electric aircraft through a connection to the charging component; and the fault element comprises denying access of the electric aircraft to the charging component as a function of the authentication module [par. 55 & 58; authenticating the UAV 140 via a handshake process, the authentication is required to provide power, thus otherwise access is denied].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhao and Kirleis to further include wherein the controller comprises an authentication module that is configured to authenticate the electric aircraft through a connection to the charging component; and the fault element comprises denying access of the electric aircraft to the charging component as a function of the authentication module for the purpose of ensuring that a UAV is authorized to receive charging, as taught by Amarasekara (par. 55).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Zhao discloses wherein the electric aircraft further comprises an electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft [par. 143].
Regarding claims 24 and 34, Zhao discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive a battery pack datum from the electric aircraft [pars. 9, 32, 62, 64, 80, 84-86, 101 & 110; data representing the current, voltage and temperature (battery pack data) are measured to create data which is used to compare with thresholds].
Regarding claims 26 and 36, Zhao discloses wherein the fault element further comprises an electrical abnormality [pars. 9, 32, 62, 64, 80, 84-86, 101 & 110; data representing the current and voltage (battery pack data) are measured to create data, which is used to compare with thresholds, to determine faults including over charge/discharge and short circuits, which are electrical abnormalities].
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Zhao discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine the disruption element as a function of a fault threshold [pars. 5, 16, 101 & 106; faults including short circuit, overcharge and over discharge or a temperature issue; based on which threshold is crossed, the disruption element may be the current, voltage or temperature].
Regarding claims 28 and 38, Zhao discloses wherein the shutdown protocol further comprises tripping the charging component, using a switch, as a function of the disruption element [pars. 15-16 & 105; when charging is stopped the MCU closes Q2 745].
Regarding claims 29 and 39, Zhao discloses wherein the processor is configured to initiate the shutdown protocol automatically [par. 106 & 110; if the overcharge or temperature thresholds are exceeded Q2 is automatically cut off].
Regarding claims 30 and 40, Zhao discloses wherein the shutdown protocol further comprises an emergency protocol, wherein the emergency protocol includes electrically shutting down at least an electrical connection of the charging component [par. 106 & 110; if the overcharge or temperature thresholds are exceeded, an emergency is indicated and Q2 is automatically cut off, thus disabling the power supply].
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao US PGPUB 2015/0158392, in view of Kirleis et al. US PGPUB 2020/0274371, further in view of Amarasekara et al. US PGPUB 2017/0110901 and further in view of Marathe et al. US PGPUB 2013/0317979.
Regarding claims 25 and 35, the combination of Zhao, Kirleis and Amarasekara does not explicitly disclose wherein the fault element further comprises a network communication fault.
However, Marathe discloses a vehicle charging system wherein the fault element further comprises a network communication fault [pars. 43-44 & 67; if communication fails then charging can be terminated; Examiner is interpreting a network communication fault according to paragraph 56 of the specification, “A "network communication fault," for the purpose of this disclosure, is a fault that occurred and is associated with any communication involving a network. In a non-limiting embodiment, the network communication fault may include a disconnection experienced by electric aircraft 152, processor 112, and/or any other electrical device to the network”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhao to further include wherein the fault element further comprises a network communication fault for the purpose of ensuring that charging is authorized and conducted according to parameters, as taught by Marathe (pars. 27-28).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 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.
/DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859