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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, as necessitated by the amendments to the claims filed 09/03/2025.
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, 10, 11, 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston et al. (USPGPN 2018/0123357 A1 – published May, 3, 2018), in view of Yang (USPGPN 2007/0257635 A1 – published Nov. 8, 2007) and Tohara et al. (USPGPN 2016/0013670).
Regarding Claim 1, Beaston (Fig.1C, 9, & 10B) teaches an energy storage system, comprising:
one or more battery sub-arrays (302a1 & 302b1 & 302n1), wherein each of the one or more battery sub-arrays comprises one or more energy storage racks (302a1), and wherein each of the one or more energy storage racks comprises one or more battery packs (412a); and
a control apparatus (150/702) coupled to the one or more battery sub-arrays and configured to:
identify that parameter calibration needs to be performed on a first energy storage rack (302a1) in a first battery sub-array of the one or more battery sub-arrays (¶0104: battery calibration manager for recalibrating battery pack values which would include recalibrating the energy storage racks in the battery pack); and
perform calibration on a parameter of each of one or more battery packs in the first energy storage rack (¶0218: calibration discharge) after each of the one or more battery packs in the first energy storage rack is fully charged (¶0218:calibration discharge occurs after the battery is put in a known full charge state).
Beaston fails to explicitly teach the controller increasing a first weight of the first energy storage rack when the first energy storage rack meets a preset condition and when the first energy storage rack is in a charge state, wherein the first weight is a weight of a charge power of the first energy storage rack to a total charge power of the first battery sub-array.
However, Tohara teaches a battery sub-array control system which controls a weight of a charge power of a first energy storage rack to a total charge power of the battery sub-array (Fig.7: sample distribution cases of batteries receiving portions of a total charge power, battery weighting of a charge power, based on different prioritization levels).
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 Beaston with Tohara to include battery weighting to improve allocation of charge/discharge power to individual cells in a system with a plurality of cells.
Moreover, Yang teaches a system where a battery charging current is increased after a predetermined time has elapsed at a first level (Claim 3: charging current becomes a second higher level after a predetermined time period has elapsed).
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 Beaston with Yang to increase the charging current of the first energy storage rack in response to the preset condition occurring. Doing so allows the energy storage rack to reach a full charge faster.
Regarding Claim 3, Beaston, in view of Yang and Tohara, further teaches wherein the preset condition comprises:
a percentage of a state of energy of the first energy storage rack is greater than a third preset threshold;
the percentage of energy of the first energy storage rack is less than or equal to the third preset threshold, and the first energy storage rack receives a discharge instruction; or
a duration in which the first energy storage rack is in the charge state is greater than a fourth preset threshold (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Yang: charging current becomes a second higher level after a predetermined time period has elapsed).
Regarding Claim 10, Beaston further teaches wherein the control apparatus is further configured to obtain a status of the first energy storage rack, and wherein the status indicates the charge state or the discharge state (Fig.22A, SOC Value).
Regarding Claim 11, Beaston (Fig.1C, 9, & 10B) teaches a parameter calibration method implemented by an energy storage system, wherein the parameter calibration method comprises:
identifying that parameter calibration needs to be performed on a first energy storage rack (302a1), wherein the energy storage system comprises one of more battery sub-arrays (302a1 & 302b1 & 302n1), wherein each of the one or more battery sub-arrays comprises one or more energy storage racks(302a1), wherein each of the one or more energy storage racks comprises one or more battery backs (412a), and wherein the first energy storage rack is in a first battery sub-array of the one or more battery sub-arrays (¶0104: battery calibration manager for recalibrating battery pack values which would include recalibrating the energy storage racks in the battery pack); and
performing calibration on a parameter of each of one or more battery packs in the first energy storage rack (¶0218: calibration discharge) after each of the one or more battery packs in the first energy storage rack is fully charged (¶0218: calibration discharge occurs after the battery is put in a known full charge state) or after a remaining power of the battery packs is fully discharged.
Beaston fails to explicitly teach increasing a weight of a charge or discharge power of the first energy storage rack to a total charge or discharge power of the first battery sub-array when the first energy storage rack meets a preset condition.
However, Tohara teaches a battery sub-array control system which controls a weight of a charge power of a first energy storage rack to a total charge power of the battery sub-array (Fig.7: sample distribution cases of batteries receiving portions of a total charge power, battery weighting of a charge power, based on different prioritization levels).
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 Beaston with Tohara to include battery weighting to improve allocation of charge/discharge power to individual cells in a system with a plurality of cells.
Moreover, Yang teaches a system where a battery charging current is increased after a predetermined time has elapsed at a first level (Claim 3: charging current becomes a second higher level after a predetermined time period has elapsed).
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 Beaston with Yang to increase the charging current of the first energy storage rack in response to the preset condition occurring. Doing so allows the energy storage rack to reach a full charge faster.
Regarding Claim 13, Beaston, in view of Yang and Tohara, further teaches wherein when the first energy storage rack is in a charge state, the preset condition comprises:
a percentage of a state of energy of the first energy storage rack is greater than a third preset threshold;
the percentage of energy of the first energy storage rack is less than or equal to the third preset threshold, and the first energy storage rack receives a discharge instruction; or
a duration in which the first energy storage rack is in the charge state is greater than a fourth preset threshold (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11 above, Yang: charging current becomes a second higher level after a predetermined time period has elapsed).
Regarding Claim 14, Beaston, in view of Yang and Tohara, further teaches wherein when the first energy storage rack does not meet the preset condition, the parameter calibration method further comprises:
maintaining a status of the first energy storage rack, and maintaining the ratio (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11 above, Yang: if the predetermined time period has not elapsed, the charging current remains the same).
Regarding Claim 15, Beaston, in view of Ha, further teaches obtaining a status of the first energy storage rack, and wherein the status indicates the charge state or the discharge state (Fig.22A, SOC Value).
Regarding Claim 16, Beaston further teaches wherein identifying that the parameter calibration needs to be performed comprises further identifying that the parameter calibration needs to be performed on the first energy storage rack based on one or more of:
an accumulated ampere-hour value is greater than or equal to a first preset threshold;
a time period since last parameter calibration is greater than or equal to a second preset threshold (¶0217: calibration is executed when a time interval since the last calibration is satisfied);
l an accumulated charging energy value is greater than or equal to a third preset threshold; or
an accumulated discharging energy value is greater than or equal to a fourth preset threshold.
Regarding Claims 17-19, Beaston further teaches wherein the parameter of the first energy storage rack comprises a state of charge (SOC) and a state of energy (SOE) (Fig.22A, SOC and AH Dischargeable).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 8, & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston, in view of Yang and Tohara, as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Shao et al. (Chinese publication CN 112345942 A – published Feb. 9, 2021).
Regarding Claim 4, Beaston (Fig. 9) teaches wherein the control apparatus comprises:
a sub-array controller (802); and
one or more battery controllers (414a) coupled to the sub-array controller, wherein each of the one or more battery controllers corresponds to an energy storage rack (302a); and
wherein the parameter calibration is identified, communication occurs between the sub-array controller and the battery controller, a power adjustment value is determined and communicated in response to a preset condition being met (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1).
Beaston fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery controller performs the identification and communicates it to the sub-array controller, and wherein the sub-array controller obtains the power adjustment value and communicates it to the battery controller.
However, Shao teaches a battery system where a battery controller (Fig.8, 102) communicates with a sub-array controller (Fig.8, 101) which perform various identification and determination tasks (Pg.7, Para. 3: CMU reports parameters and SMU sends control instructions), and that the algorithms can be realized in software and hardware depending on the particular application (Pg.14, final paragraph – Pg.15, first paragraph).
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 Beaston, in view of Yang and Tohara, with Shao to have the battery controller perform the identification and communicate it to the sub-array controller, and have the sub-array controller determine if the predetermined condition is met, obtain a power adjustment value, and send it to the battery controller. Doing so would allow for the system to be designed based on the application, while allowing for minimizing processing power of the controllers and maximizing performance speed.
Regarding Claim 6, Beaston (Fig. 9) teaches wherein the control apparatus comprises:
a sub-array controller (802); and
one or more battery controllers (414a) coupled to the sub-array controller, wherein each of the one or more battery controllers corresponds to an energy storage rack (302a); and
wherein the parameter calibration is identified, communication occurs between the sub-array controller and the battery controller, a power adjustment value is determined and communicated in response to a preset condition being met (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1).
Beaston fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery controller performs the identification and communicates it to the sub-array controller after confirming the preset condition has been met, and wherein the sub-array controller obtains the power adjustment value and communicates it to the battery controller.
However, Shao teaches a battery system where a battery controller (Fig.8, 102) communicates with a sub-array controller (Fig.8, 101) which perform various identification and determination tasks (Pg.7, Para. 3: CMU reports parameters and SMU sends control instructions), and that the algorithms can be realized in software and hardware depending on the particular application (Pg.14, final paragraph – Pg.15, first paragraph).
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 Beaston, in view of Yang and Tohara, with Shao to have the battery controller perform the identification and communicate it to the sub-array controller, and have the sub-array controller determine if the predetermined condition is met, obtain a power adjustment value, and send it to the battery controller. Doing so would allow for the system to be designed based on the application, while allowing for minimizing processing power of the controllers and maximizing performance speed.
Regarding Claim 8, Beaston further teaches wherein the control apparatus further comprises one or more battery monitors, wherein each of the one or more battery monitors (Fig.27A) corresponds to a battery pack (Battery Module), wherein each of the one or more battery monitors corresponding to each battery pack in the first energy storage rack is configured to perform the calibration on a parameter of a corresponding battery pack after the corresponding battery pack is fully charged (¶0242: BMCs are instructed to remove energy from the battery module, therefore they would be configured to perform the calibration after being instructed).
Regarding Claim 9, Beaston further teaches wherein identifying that a parameter of a first battery pack in the first energy storage rack needs to be calibrated is based on one or more of:
an accumulated ampere-hour value is greater than or equal to a first preset threshold;
a time period since last parameter calibration is greater than or equal to a second preset threshold (¶0217: calibration is executed when a time interval since the last calibration is satisfied); or
an accumulated charging energy value is greater than or equal to a third preset threshold.
an accumulated discharging energy value is greater than or equal to a fourth preset threshold.
Beaston fails to explicitly teach wherein a first of the one or more battery monitors is configured to perform the identification.
However, Shao teaches that algorithms can be realized in software and hardware depending on the particular application (Pg.14, final paragraph – Pg.15, first paragraph).
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 Beaston, in view of Yang, Tohara, and Shao, with Shao to have the battery monitor perform the identification. Doing so would allow for the system to be designed based on the application, while allowing for minimizing processing power of the other controllers and maximizing performance speed of the system.
Claim(s) 5 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston, in view of Yang, Tohara, and Shao, as applied to claims 4 & 6 above, and further in view of Alexander et al. (USPGPN 2017/0368157 A1 – published Dec. 18, 2014).
Regarding Claim 5, Beaston fails to explicitly teach wherein when the first energy storage rack does not meet the preset condition, the sub-array controller is further configured to:
obtain a second power adjustment value of the first energy storage rack, to reduce the first weight; and
send, to the first battery controller, a second power adjustment instruction
However, Alexander teaches a battery charging method which reduces the charging current when a predetermined condition is not met (¶0033: charging current is reduced when the battery voltage does not equal or exceed the threshold).
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 Beaston, in view of Yan, Tohara, and Shao, with Alexander to include a determination for reducing the first ratio. Doing so would attempt to reduce the heat generated by the energy storage rack when the increased charging speed is not required.
Regarding Claim 7, Beaston fails to explicitly teach wherein the first battery controller is configured to:
send, to the sub-array controller, a second ratio adjustment request requesting to reduce the first ratio when the first energy storage rack does not meet the preset condition, and wherein the sub-array controller is further configured to:
obtain, in response to the second ratio adjustment request, a second power adjustment value of the first energy storage rack, to reduce the first weight; and
send, to the first battery controller, a second power adjustment instruction
However, Alexander teaches a battery charging method which reduces the charging current when a predetermined condition is not met (¶0033: charging current is reduced when the battery voltage does not equal or exceed the threshold).
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 Beaston, in view of Yang, Tohara, and Shao, with Alexander to include a determination for reducing the first ratio. Doing so would attempt to reduce the heat generated by the energy storage rack when the increased charging speed is not required.
Claim(s) 21 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston, in view of Ha (Korean Publication KR 20070122029 A – published Dec. 28, 2007) and Tohara.
Regarding Claim 21, Beaston (Fig.1C, 9, & 10B) teaches an energy storage system, comprising:
one or more battery sub-arrays (302a1 & 302b1 & 302n1), wherein each of the one or more battery sub-arrays comprises one or more energy storage racks (302a1), and wherein each of the one or more energy storage racks comprises one or more battery packs (412a); and
a control apparatus (150/702) coupled to the one or more battery sub-arrays and configured to:
identify that parameter calibration needs to be performed on a first energy storage rack (302a1) in a first battery sub-array of the one or more battery sub-arrays (¶0104: battery calibration manager for recalibrating battery pack values which would include recalibrating the energy storage racks in the battery pack); and
perform calibration on a parameter of each of one or more battery packs in the first energy storage rack (¶0218: calibration discharge) after each of the one or more battery packs in the first energy storage rack is fully discharged (¶0218:calibration charge occurs after the battery is put in a fully discharged state).
Beaston fails to explicitly teach the controller increasing a first weight of the first energy storage rack when the first energy storage rack meets a preset condition and when the first energy storage rack is in a discharge state, wherein the first weight is a weight of a discharge power of the first energy storage rack to a total discharge power of the first battery sub-array.
However, Tohara teaches a battery sub-array control system which controls a weight of a discharge power of a first energy storage rack to a total discharge power of the battery sub-array (Fig.7: sample distribution cases of batteries receiving portions of a total charge/discharge power, battery weighting of a discharge power, based on different prioritization levels).
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 Beaston with Tohara to include battery weighting to improve allocation of charge/discharge power to individual cells in a system with a plurality of cells.
Moreover, Ha teaches a battery system where the discharge rate of a battery is increased after the battery reaches a preset condition, remaining power is below a predetermined value (Abstract: when remaining power is below a predetermined value, power is consumed at a higher rate).
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 Beaston to increase the discharging rate of the energy storage rack, increase the weight, in response to the preset condition being met. Doing so allows the battery to be fully discharged at a faster rate, to provide a desired timing to perform charging and discharging of a battery.
Regarding Claim 22, Beaston, in view of Ha and Tohara, further teaches wherein when the first energy storage rack is in the discharge state, the preset condition comprises:
a percentage of a state of energy of the first energy storage rack is less than a first preset threshold (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 21 above, Ha: when remaining power is below a predetermined value, power is consumed at a higher rate);
the percentage of the state of energy of the first energy storage rack is greater than or equal to the first preset threshold, and the first energy storage rack receives a charge instruction; or
a duration in which the first energy storage rack is in the discharge state is greater than a second preset threshold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Long et al. (USPGPN 2017/0338665) teaches a system for weighting charge powers of a plurality of batteries.
Kim et al. (Australian publication AU 2022342981 A1) teaches a system for weighting discharge powers of a plurality of batteries.
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
Prosecution Insights