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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art applied in the rejection of claim 23 does not teach using the pre-charge circuit … for balancing purposes, 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “balancing”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Ichikawa teaches a different architecture than the pre-charging circuit of amended claim 23 and therefore cannot contribute toward the specific pre-charge circuit arrangement in an energy storage system. Examiner is not relying on Ichikawa to teach the pre-charging circuit of the previously rejected claim 40. Ichikawa is relied upon to teach that using two parallel energy sources with respective power conversion circuits is a common application that would be an obvious modification to the pre-charging circuit taught by Hashim, in view of Stanke and Zhao, for the benefit of redundancy in the event of a failure.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments against Hashim that does not disclose that “the pre-charge circuit 44 is implemented without any electrical resistors 112”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hashim states in ¶0025 that a current sensor 56 may be provided on the pre-charge path to measure the current through the pre-charge circuit 44, which could be a Hall-effect sensor, and further indicates other possible locations, (62 or 66) and the disadvantages of those locations in ¶0026. In ¶0029, Hashim further discloses that the resistor 112 shown in Fig.3 is a current sensing resistor and that a different current sensing scheme may be possible, which the examiner interprets to mean that the current sensing resistor 112 is the current sensor on the pre-charge path, sensor 56. Therefore, it would be understood that it would be an obvious modification of the pre-charge circuit 44 to replace the current sensing resistor 112 with a different current sensing technology, such as a Hall-effect sensor, as supported by Hashim.
Applicant’s arguments against references Bucur, Popescu, and Yun appear to be focused on the limitation of “no ohmic resistor” in the pre-charge circuit and are therefore moot in view of the response above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 23, 25-28, 30-32, 36, 39, & 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim et al. (USPGPN 2015/0084404 A1 – published Mar. 26, 2015), in view of Stanke (USPGPN 2023/0050963 A1 – provisionally filed Aug. 12, 2021), Zhao et al. (USPGPN 2014/0203763 A1 – published Jul. 24, 2014), and Ichikawa (USPGPN 2010/0076636 A1 – published Mar. 25, 2010).
Regarding Claims 23, Hashim (Figs.2 & 3) teaches an energy storage system for a water vessel, the energy storage system comprising:
at least a first energy storage unit (40) with a first pole and a second pole (positive and negative terminal) comprising at least one battery cell (by definition, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a battery is a group of two or more cells) or at least one battery cell module with at least one battery cell; and
a pre-charging circuit (Fig.2, circuitry connecting 40 and 72) comprising:
a first connection and a second connection (connection points at 72);
a first connection line (connection between the positive terminal of the battery to the capacitor) between the first pole of the first energy storage unit and the first connection, wherein the first connection line has a first node (node connecting the battery with the main contactor and pre-charge circuit), which is connected with the first pole of the first energy storage unit, and a second node (node connecting the main contactor and pre-charge circuit to the capacitor), which is connected with the first connection;
a second connection line (connection between the negative terminal of the battery to the capacitor) between the second pole of the first energy storage unit and the second connection, wherein the second connection line has a fourth node (node connecting the battery, capacitor, and diode 104), which is connected with the second pole of the first energy storage unit and the second connection;
a third connection line between the first node and the second node, with a third node (110) and an inductance (102) between the third node and the second node, a fourth connection line (connection line comprising diode 104) between the third node and the fourth node, and a free-wheeling diode (104), which is arranged in the fourth connection line, which is arranged for a current from the fourth node to the third node in forward direction;
a first switching unit (42) in the first connection line between the first node and the second node for switching a current from the first node to the second node and a third switching unit (100) in the third connection line between the first node and the third node for switching a current from a first node to the third node; and
a control unit (54), which is configured for controlling at least one of the first switching unit or the third switching unit for limiting a strength of a discharge current for the first energy storage unit to a predefined discharge current threshold value (¶0005: current may be controlled to a predetermined range).
Hashim fails to explicitly teach a second energy storage unit with a first pole and a second pole comprising at least one battery cell or at least one battery module with at least one battery cell;
wherein the first and second energy storage units are connected with each other in parallel by means of the first and second connection;
further comprising a fourth switching unit, comprising the free-wheeling diode, wherein the fourth switching unit is arranged in the fourth connection line between the third node and the fourth node and is configured for switching a current from the third node to the fourth node; and
wherein the control unit is configured for alternately closing and opening the fourth switching unit in such a way that at least one of: a median time value or a minimum value of a current strength of a charging current is equal to or greater than a predefined booster threshold value.
However, Stanke (Fig.7B) teaches the use of a fourth switching unit (M2) between a third node (node between M1 and L1) and a fourth node (circuit ground), which comprises a free-wheeling diode (FETs inherently have a body diode/parasitic diode).
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 Hashim to include a fourth switching unit, as taught by Stanke. Doing so allows for an operation as a boost circuit using the inductor from the when connecting a voltage source to charge the battery, as evidenced by Stanke (¶0068: controller controls the circuit in a boost mode during the charge mode).
Moreover, Zhao teaches common practice for controlling a boost converter/step-up converter to have switches (Fig.1, S1) opened and closed to control an output current to be constant (¶0018: control circuit outputs control signals for switches, including S1, to provide a constant current output, or in other words, to increase a charging current to be equal to a predefined value).
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 Hashim to include control of opening and closing the fourth switching unit in such a way that a minimum value of a current strength of a charging current is equal to a predefined booster threshold value, as taught by Zhao. Doing so allows a system to provide a constant current constant voltage (CCCV) charging scheme, as evidenced by Zhao (Fig.5).
Lastly, Ichikawa teaches an energy storage system comprising two or more energy storage devices (B1/L1/Q1A/Q1B & B2/L2/Q2A/Q2B), which are connected to each other in parallel by means of a first and second connections (D1B & D2B connection to VH and D1A & D2A connection to VH).
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 Hashim to include a second energy storage device connected in parallel to provide an energy storage system, as taught by Ichikawa. Doing so allows for a level of redundancy in the event of a failure of a battery.
Regarding Claim 25, Hashim, as modified, further teaches wherein at least one of the first switching unit or the third switching unit are formed as power switches, wherein a corresponding diode is formed by a parasitic diode of the power switches (MOSFETs inherently have a body diode/parasitic diode).
Regarding Claim 26, Hashim, as modified, further teaches wherein the control unit is configured for switching at least one of the first switching unit or the third switching unit based on at least one of a pulse width modulation method (¶0031: duty cycle, i.e. pulse width modulation), a two-point regulation method, a hysteresis regulation method, or a linear regulation method.
Regarding Claim 27, Hashim, as modified, further teaches wherein the control unit is formed as a limiting regulator (¶0005: controller controls the pre-charge circuit until the current is below a threshold; Fig.4, IL<Imin), or the control unit comprises the limiting regulator.
Regarding Claim 28, Hashim, as modified, further teaches wherein the control unit is configured for switching at least one of the first switching unit or the third switching unit based on at least one of the following: a direction of a current across the first connection line between the first connection and the second node, a strength of the current across the first connection line between the first connection and the second node, a direction of a current across the third connection line between the third node and the second node, a strength of the current across the third connection line between the third node and the second node (Fig.4, 208 & 210; IL determines switching of MOSFET 100), a direction of a current across the first connection line between the first node and the first pole of the first energy storage unit, a strength of the current across the first connection line between the first node and the first pole, a height of a voltage of the first energy storage unit, a height of a voltage at the connections, or a relationship between the height of the voltage of the first and second energy storage unit and the height of the voltage at the connections.
Regarding Claim 30, Hashim (Fig.4), as modified, further teaches wherein the control unit is configured for:
opening the third switching unit (210) when a current strength of at least one of the discharge current or a current from the third node to the second node (IL) is equal to or greater than a predefined first threshold value or exceeds the first threshold value (208); and
closing the third switching unit (214) when the current strength is equal to or smaller than a predefined second threshold value or falls short of the predefined second threshold value (212), wherein the second threshold value is equal to or smaller than the first threshold value (IL must be lower than ITH to be compared to ITL).
Regarding Claim 31, Hashim (Fig.4), as modified, further teaches wherein the control unit is configured for alternately opening and closing the third switching unit in such a way that a median time value or a maximum value of a current strength of at least one of the discharge current or a current from the third node to the second node (IL) is equal to or smaller than the discharge current threshold value (steps 208-214 are repeated until condition 218 is satisfied).
Regarding Claim 32, Hashim, as modified, further teaches wherein the control unit is configured for closing the first switching unit and for opening the third switching unit when at least one of: at least one of a current strength of a current from the third node to the second node or the discharge current for the energy storage unit is equal to or smaller than a predefined third threshold value (Fig.4, 216: IL < Imin leads to Pre-charge complete; ¶0038: when pre-charge is complete, the main contactor may be switched on and the pre-charge circuitry switched off) or falls short of the predefined third threshold value; or a difference between a voltage at the connections and a voltage at the energy storage unit is equal to or smaller than a predefined fourth threshold value or falls short of the predefined fourth threshold value.
Hashim, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for Hashim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the third switching unit being opened after the first switching unit is closed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to open the third switching unit after closing the fourth switching unit, since applicant has not disclosed that the switching timing solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the third switching unit being opened after the first switching unit is closed. Doing so would ensure no interruption between the connection of the battery to the load when charging from the pre-charging operation to normal operation.
Regarding Claim 36, Hashim, in view of Stanke (Fig.7B) and Zhao, further teaches wherein the fourth switching unit is formed as a power switch (M2), and wherein the free-wheeling diode is formed by a parasitic diode of the power switch (FETs inherently have a body diode/parasitic diode).
Regarding Claim 39, Hashim, as modified, further teaches wherein the at least one battery cell is a lithium based battery cell (¶0017: battery may be lithium-ion).
Regarding Claim 42, Hashim, as modified, teaches the energy storage device according to claim 23 and a charging control method comprising the step: alternating closing of the fourth switching unit and opening of the fourth switching unit (Fig.7B: controller 702 connected to M2’s gate).
Hashim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the charging control method wherein the fourth switching unit is alternately opened and closed based on at least one of a predefined charging switching frequency or a predefined charging duty cycle.
However, Zhao teaches that it is common practice to use a duty cycle to control the opening and closing of a switch in a boost circuit (¶0024: pulse-width modulation control circuit, i.e. duty cycle).
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 method taught by Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Ichikawa, with Zhao to open and close the fourth switch based on a predefined charging duty cycle. Doing so allows the system control the output of the boost circuit.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Ichikawa, as applied in the rejection of claim 23 above, and further in view of Bucur (US Patent 6,864,669 – published Mar. 8, 2005).
Regarding Claim 24, Hashim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of: the first switching unit comprises a first switch and a first diode connected with the first switch in parallel, which is arranged for a current from the first node to the second node in reverse direction; or the third switching unit comprises a third switch and a third diode connected with the third switch in parallel, which is arranged for a current from the first node to the third node in reverse direction.
However, Bucur (Fig.3) teaches the use of a diode (D4A) in parallel with a switch (SW4A) which is connected between a first pole of a battery (Battery A) and a first connection (From DC Power Source) which is arranged for a current from the first pole to the first connection in a reverse direction (examiner equates this to a first switch and a first diode in parallel).
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 Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Ichikawa, to include a diode in parallel with the first switch, arranged for a current from the first node to the second node in a reverse direction. Doing so allows the circuit to have controlled charge and discharge of the battery without unexpected current flow, and allows the diode to be used for low charging current and the switch to be closed when a higher charging current is provided to minimize the power dissipated through the diode, as evidenced by Bucur (Col.5, lines 51-59).
Claim(s) 29, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Ichikawa, as applied in the rejection of claim 23 above, and further in view of Popescu (USPGPN 2004/0217737 A1 – published Nov. 4, 2004)
Regarding Claim 29, Hashim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured for: closing the first switching unit when a current flows from the first connection to the second node or when the charging current flows; and opening the third switching unit after closing the first switching unit.
However, Popescu teaches a battery charging circuit where a first switching unit is not closed until a charging current is detected (¶0028: switch controller closes the switch Q2 when the charging current reaches a predetermined level).
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 Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Ichikawa, to include a step of closing the first switch when a charging current is detected. Doing so allows the battery to be charged when a sufficient charging current is provided.
Moreover, Hashim, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for Hashim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the third switching unit being opened after the first switching unit is closed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to open the third switching unit after closing the fourth switching unit, since applicant has not disclosed that the switching timing solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the third switching unit being opened after the first switching unit is closed. Doing so would ensure no interruption between the connection of the battery to the load when charging from the pre-charging operation to normal operation.
Claim(s) 33 & 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Ichikawa, as applied in the rejection of claim 23 above, and further in view of Yun (USPGPN 2012/0139479 A1 – published Jun. 7, 2012).
Regarding Claim 33, Hashim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach further comprising a second switching unit, wherein:
the second switching unit is arranged in the first connection line between the first node and the first pole of the first energy storage unit and is configured for switching a current from the first node to the first pole of the first energy storage unit; or
the second switching unit is arranged in the second connection line between the second pole of the first energy storage unit and the fourth node and is configured for switching a current from the second pole of the first energy storage unit to the fourth node.
However, Yun (Fig. 1) teaches a second switching unit (121) arranged between a first node (node between 121, 123, & 125) and a first pole (positive terminal of 110).
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 Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Ichikawa, to include a second switching unit, as taught by Yun. Doing so would allow for a restriction of a charging current being applied to the battery unless the switch is controlled to be closed, as disclosed by Yun (¶0045: FET1 is turned on to allow for the battery to be charged).
Regarding Claim 34, Hashim, as modified (Yun-Fig.1), further teaches wherein: the second switching unit comprises a second switch (¶0041: FET1) and a second diode (¶0041: DD) connected with the second switch in parallel, which is arranged for a current from the first node to the first pole of the first energy storage unit in reverse direction.
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Ichikawa, as applied in the rejection of claim 23 above, and further in view of NPL – Electronics Coach – Boost Converter Operating Principles (published Sep. 2021; hereinafter NPL-Boost Converter).
Regarding Claim 48, Hashim, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose the control unit is configured for alternately closing and opening the fourth switching unit in such a way that a current across the first connection line between the first connection and the second node is equal to or greater than the predefined booster threshold value.
However, NPL-Boost Converter (Fig.1) teaches that a boost converter is commonly controlled by alternately closing and opening the switch (CH) in such a way that an input current (Pg.6, waveforms: iin) is equal to or greater than a predefined booster threshold value (Pg.6, waveforms: i1).
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 Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Ichikawa, with NPL-Boost Converter to have the control unit is configured for alternately closing and opening the fourth switching unit in such a way that a current across the first connection line between the first connection and the second node is equal to or greater than the predefined booster threshold value. Doing so allows the circuit to properly boost the input voltage to a higher output voltage with efficient operation.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, Ichikawa, and Yun.
Regarding Claim 49, Hashim, as modified, teaches pre-charging control method for an energy storage system according to claim 23 (as disclosed above), comprising at least one of the steps:
closing the first switching unit when the charging current flows, after closing the first switching unit, opening the third switching unit (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 29 above);
opening the third switching unit when the current strength of the discharge current is greater than a predefined first threshold value or exceeds the first threshold value, and closing the third switching unit when the current strength is equal to or smaller than a predefined second threshold value or falls short of the second threshold value, wherein the second threshold value is equal to or smaller than the first threshold value;
alternating opening of the third switching unit and closing of the third switching unit based on at least one of a predefined pre-charging switching frequency or a predefined pre-charging duty cycle, wherein at least one of the pre-charging switching frequency or the pre-charging duty cycle are changed continuously or in stages; or
closing the first switching unit when:
the current strength of the discharge current, I', is equal to or smaller than a predefined third threshold value or falls short of the third threshold value; or
a difference between a height of a voltage, U, between the first and second energy storage unit and a height of the voltage at the first and second connection is equal to or smaller than a predefined fourth threshold value or falls short of the fourth threshold value.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, Ichikawa, Bucur, and Yun.
Regarding Claim 50, Hashim, as modified, teaches a pre-charging control method for the energy storage system according to claim 23 (as disclosed above), comprising the steps:
closing the second switching unit of the first energy storage unit (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above), wherein:
the second switching unit is arranged in the first connection line between the first node and the first pole of the first energy storage unit and is configured for switching a current from the first node to the first pole of the first energy storage unit (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above); or
the second switching unit is arranged in the second connection line between the second pole of the first energy storage unit and the fourth node and is configured for switching a current from the second pole of the first energy storage unit to the fourth node; and
carrying out the pre-charging control method according to claim 49 (as disclosed above) for all energy storage units of the energy storage system.
Conclusion
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