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 filed 11/12/2025, with respect to claims 23 and 46, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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., the pre-charging circuit of amended claim 23 does not require any electrical capacity) 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).
Applicant further argues that Zhao has a different architecture from the pre-charging circuit of amended claim 23 because the switch S1 is grounded, however based on Applicant’s Figure 5, it is shown that fourth switch S4 is grounded. Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the Zhao has a different architecture.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that since Stanke and Zhao require a capacitor, Stanke and Zhao do not teach the pre-charging circuit of amended claim 23. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s use of the term “comprising” in the preamble allows for the inclusion of additional components not recited in the claim. Therefore, Stanke and Zhao teach the pre-charging circuit of amended claim 23 regardless of the inclusion of the capacitor to provide a smoothed output from the boost converter.
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, 38, 39, 42, & 46 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) and Zhao et al. (USPGPN 2014/0203763 A1 – published Jul. 24, 2014).
Regarding Claims 23 & 46, Hashim (Figs.2 & 3) teaches an energy storage device for a water vessel, the energy storage device comprising:
a first connection and a second connection (connection points at 72);
an energy storage unit (40) with a first pole and a second pole;
a first connection line (connection between the positive terminal of the battery to the capacitor) between the first pole 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, 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 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 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 energy storage unit to a predefined discharge current threshold value (¶0005: current may be controlled to a predetermined range).
Hashim fails to explicitly teach 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; or a current across the first connection line between the first connection and the second node 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, as modified, 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).
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, a strength of the current across the first connection line between the first node and the first pole, a strength of a charging current for the energy storage unit, a strength of the discharge current for the energy storage unit, a height of a voltage of the energy storage unit, a height of a voltage at the connections, or a relationship between the height of the voltage of the 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 38, Hashim, as modified, further teaches wherein: the energy storage unit is or comprises at least one battery cell (Fig.2, 40); or the energy storage unit is or comprises at least one battery module with at least one battery cell.
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, in view of Stanke and Zhao, 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 and Zhao, 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 and Zhao, 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 and Zhao, 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 and Zhao, 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 a 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 and Zhao, 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, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Popescu, discloses the claimed invention except for Hashim, as modifed, 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 and Zhao, 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 and is configured for switching a current from the first node to the first pole; or
the second switching unit is arranged in the second connection line between the second pole and the fourth node and is configured for switching a current from the second pole 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 and Zhao, 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, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and 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 in reverse direction.
Claim(s) 40 & 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim, in view of Stanke and Zhao, as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Ichikawa (USPGPN 2010/0076636 A1 – published Mar. 25, 2010).
Regarding Claim 40, Hashim, in view of Stanke and Zhao, teaches an energy storage device according to claim 38.
Hashim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach an energy storage system for a water vessel, comprising two or more energy storage device according to claim 38, which are connected to each other in parallel by means of a first and second connections.
However, 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, in view of Stanke and Zhao, 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 44, Hashim, in view of Stanke, Zhao, and Ichikawa, teaches a charging control method for an energy storage system for a water vessel, comprising two or more energy storage devices according to claim 23, which are connected with each other in parallel by means of the first and second connections (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 40 above), wherein:
the energy storage unit is or comprises at least one battery cell (Hashim: Fig.2 40); or
the energy storage unit is or comprises at least one battery module with at least one battery cell.
Hashim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the charging control method for the energy storage device of the energy storage system, comprising the step:
alternating closing of the fourth switching unit and opening of the fourth switching unit,
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 alternate opening and closing the fourth switch based on a predefined charging duty cycle. Doing so allows the system control the output of the boost circuit.
Conclusion
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