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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 9, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 claims a control switch and then claims a first control switch, are they the same switch. Again, a similar rejection was made in the previous rejection, given the fact the applicant’s invention teaches two switches (a first control and second control switch). Claims 4-8, 13-15 and 19 would imply a total of 3 switches based on the first control and second switch in addition to the control switch. At best Figs. 6 and 8 teach two control switches. The applicant is advised to make the corrections accordingly given that support is not provided in the applicant’s specification as such. Applicant’s figs do not support the claimed subject matter as a whole when the dependent claims are aligned or incorporated with its independent claims
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO (2023/065486, translation) in view of Ye et al. (US Ye et al. 2023/0344246) and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2023/0147651).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a battery control method comprising: obtaining a first voltage value of a first battery pack of an electronic device; obtaining a second voltage value of a second battery pack of the electronic device in (see technical field, description of invention) and controlling, based on the first voltage value and the second voltage value, a control switch to be turned on according to a control strategy to connect the second battery pack and the first battery pack in parallel, determining whether a difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value (see figs. 1-2, detailed ways) meets a threshold and in response to determining that the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value meets a threshold, generating, at least based on the first voltage value and the second voltage value, a conduction signal for controlling a first control switch that, when turned on, connects the second battery pack to the first battery pack in parallel, the conduction signal being for controlling conductivity of the first control switch to adjust a current value of the second battery pack, so that after the conduction signal is applied to the first control switch, the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value becomes small or equal smaller than the second threshold value. (see disclosure of Zhang).
Zhang fails to teach determining whether the difference between two battery connectable in parallel, meets a threshold range, that is greater than a first threshold and lower than a second threshold in determining whether to balance parallel connected batteries. The applicant interchanges the threshold bounds yet the scope appears the same.
Ye et al. teaches parallel connected batteries in (see para 0043, 0070, 0071, 0080-0082) that a threshold range (lower and upper bounds) can be used when comparing the difference in two batteries as means of balancing voltages of batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ye into Zhang thus making it possible to use a voltage difference range in accurately determining whether there is a risk in damaging loads or loads with excessive voltages when balancing batteries by repeating a cycle of detection based on a threshold range to determine that it’s safe to connect batteries in parallel.
The combination fails to teach batteries with different voltage rating or capacities.
Huang teaches a plurality of batteries connected in parallel in (see fig. 1) directed to the battery art wherein batteries with different capacities can be applied in (see para 0009) and furthermore, wherein the batteries can be equalized to supply power to loads.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Huang into that of the combination thus allowing for flexibility of using batteries of different types to power loads by balancing or equalization.
Note that the combination as set forth would allow the batteries to be equalized to a point where the ideal scenario would be to balance the batteries to be equal ideally with a minimal difference if not zero. Note that Zhang teaches ideally an equal balance of the batteries.
Regarding claim 2, The combination including Zhang and Huang teaches wherein based on the first voltage value and the second voltage value, controlling the control switch to be turned on according to the control strategy includes: determining that a difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value is less than a first threshold value, controlling a the first control switch to be turned on is controlled according to a first control strategy to connect the second battery pack to the first battery pack in parallel, the rated capacity of the second battery pack being smaller than the rated capacity of the first battery pack (see disclosure of Zhang and para 0038 of Huang).
Regarding claim 9, , Zhang teaches a battery control method comprising: obtaining a first voltage value of a first battery pack of an electronic device; obtaining a second voltage value of a second battery pack of the electronic device in (see technical field, description of invention) , and controlling, based on the first voltage value and the second voltage value, a control switch to be turned on according to a control strategy to connect the second battery pack and the first battery pack in parallel, determining whether a difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value (see figs. 1-2, detailed ways) meets a threshold and in response to determining that the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value meets a threshold
Zhang fails to teach a controller for determining whether the difference between two battery connectable in parallel, meets a threshold range, that is greater than a first threshold and lower than a second threshold in determining whether to balance parallel connected batteries. The applicant interchanges the threshold bounds yet the scope appears the same.
Ye et al. teaches parallel connected batteries in (see para 0043, 0070, 0071, 0080-0082) that a threshold range (lower and upper bounds) can be used when comparing the difference in two batteries as means of balancing voltages of batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ye into Zhang thus making it possible to use a voltage difference range in accurately determining whether there is a risk in damaging loads or loads with excessive voltages when balancing batteries by repeating a cycle of detection based on a threshold range to determine that it’s safe to connect batteries in parallel. Note that the combination seeks to equalize the batteries as closer as possible.
The combination fails to teach batteries with different voltage rating or capacities.
Huang teaches a controller (114, 120 of fig. 1) for plurality of batteries connected in parallel in (see fig. 1) directed to the battery art wherein batteries with different capacities can be applied in (see para 0009) and furthermore, wherein the batteries can be equalized to supply power to loads based on using a controller.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Huang into that of the combination thus allowing for flexibility of using batteries of different types to power loads by balancing or equalization via means of a controller.
Note that the combination as set forth would allow the batteries to be equalized to a point where the ideal scenario would be to balance the batteries to be equal ideally with a minimal difference if not zero. Note that Zhang teaches ideally an equal balance of the batteries.
Regarding claims 11, The combination teaches the claimed limitation (see the explanation as set forth in claim 9).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO (2023/065486) in view of Ye et al. (US Ye et al. 2023/0344246) and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2023/0147651) and Tan et al. (US Pat 8,487,581).
Regarding claims 16-17, The combination teaches being able to turn one switch and maintain the other off but fails to teach when the first battery pack and the second battery pack are supplying power to the electronic device, the control circuit is further configured to disconnect a branch where a battery pack with a lower voltage value is located according to the control strategy; and when the first battery pack and the second battery pack is being charged by an external power source, the control circuit is further configured to disconnect a branch where a battery pack with a higher voltage value is located according to the control strategy.
Tan teaches in (see figs.) wherein batteries can be connected in parallel and also, based on the state of charge of the batteries, one can be disconnected and the other would be in a charging state in (see figs., figs. 5, 7, 8) “fully charged” vs not fully charged.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tan into that of the combination to avoid overcharging batteries and destroying them.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO (2023/065486) in view of Ye et al. (US Ye et al. 2023/0344246) and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2023/0147651) and further in view of Yebka et al. (US 2017/0098948)
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches a battery control method comprising: obtaining a first voltage value of a first battery pack of an electronic device; obtaining a second voltage value of a second battery pack of the electronic device in (see technical field, description of invention), and controlling, based on the first voltage value and the second voltage value, a control switch to be turned on according to a control strategy to connect the second battery pack and the first battery pack in parallel, determining whether a difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value (see figs. 1-2, detailed ways) meets a threshold and in response to determining that the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value meets a threshold, generating, at least based on the first voltage value and the second voltage value, a conduction signal for controlling a first control switch that, when turned on, connects the second battery pack to the first battery pack in parallel, the conduction signal being for controlling conductivity of the first control switch to adjust a current value of the second battery pack, so that after the conduction signal is applied to the first control switch, the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value becomes small or equal smaller than the second threshold value. (see disclosure of Zhang).
Zhang fails to teach a controller for determining whether the difference between two battery connectable in parallel, meets a threshold range, that is greater than a first threshold and lower than a second threshold in determining whether to balance parallel connected batteries. The applicant interchanges the threshold bounds yet the scope appears the same.
Ye et al. teaches parallel connected batteries in (see para 0043, 0070, 0071, 0080-0082) that a threshold range (lower and upper bounds) can be used when comparing the difference in two batteries as means of balancing voltages of batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ye into Zhang thus making it possible to use a voltage difference range in accurately determining whether there is a risk in damaging loads or loads with excessive voltages when balancing batteries by repeating a cycle of detection based on a threshold range to determine that it’s safe to connect batteries in parallel.
The combination fails to teach batteries with different voltage rating or capacities.
Huang teaches a controller (114, 120 of fig. 1) for plurality of batteries connected in parallel in (see fig. 1) directed to the battery art wherein batteries with different capacities can be applied in (see para 0009) and furthermore, wherein the batteries can be equalized to supply power to loads based on using a controller.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Huang into that of the combination thus allowing for flexibility of using batteries of different types to power loads by balancing or equalization via means of a controller.
The combination fails to teach at least one coulomb counter configured to collect a remaining power of one battery pack of the battery group.
Yebka teaches in (see figs.) a battery system wherein a coulomb counter is configured to collect power or potential of a battery (see figs., 402 with coulomb counter of fig.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yebka into that of the combination thus making it possible to detect the voltages of the batteries for overvoltage or undervoltage reasons to protect loads or overcharging batteries.
Note that the combination as set forth would allow the batteries to be equalized to a point where the ideal scenario would be to balance the batteries to be equal ideally with a minimal difference if not zero. Note that Zhang teaches ideally an equal balance of the batteries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Furthermore, the incorporations of coulomb counters on each or connected to each of the parallel connected batteries and coupled to the respective switches as shown in (fig. 8) would receive favorable consideration. Coulomb counters offer superior, high-accuracy, real-time monitoring of battery capacity (state-of-charge) by tracking energy in/out, ideal for dynamic, high-performance systems like EVs. Even though, voltage sensors are known, conversely, voltage sensors are simpler, cheaper, and reliable for identifying extreme high/low, but less accurate due to load-dependent fluctuations, temperature, and aging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rexford Barnie whose telephone number is (571)272-7492. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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.
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.
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836