DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits, in response to the claims received 10/25/2022. Claims 1-8 are pending for prosecution below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)(s) file on have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,5,7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Troxel et al, (Troxel), (USNO.2011/0080139).
As for claim 1, Troxel discloses and shows in Fig. 2 a power storage system in which two or more power storage devices are connected in parallel to one power conversion device by wiring, the power storage system comprising: a detection unit configured to detect voltages of the two or more power storage devices; and a control unit configured to, when the voltages detected by the detection unit reach a predetermined voltage, execute current decrease control for decreasing a predetermined discharge current input to the power conversion device or a predetermined charge current output from the power conversion device, to reduce a difference in the voltages among the two or more power storage devices (par.[0063]).
As for claim 2, Troxel discloses and shows in Fig. 2 the detection unit detects a voltage of a power storage device with smallest impedance (via voltage detection)of the wiring among the two or more power storage devices.
As for claim 5, Troxel discloses and shows in Fig. 2 current decrease control comprises control for stopping the discharging operation or the charging operation of the two or more power storage devices.
As for claim 7, Troxel discloses and shows in Fig. 2 control unit executes control for gradually decreasing the predetermined discharge current or the predetermined charge current in the current decrease control.
As for claim 8, Troxel discloses and shows in Fig. 2 a control method used in a power storage system in which two or more power storage devices are connected in parallel by wiring to one power conversion device, the method comprising:
(A) detecting voltages of the two or more power storage devices; and
(B) when the voltages detected in (A) reach a predetermined voltage, executing current decrease control for decreasing a predetermined discharge current input to the power conversion device or a predetermined charge current output
from the power conversion device, to reduce a difference in the voltages between the two or more power storage devices (par.[0063]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3,4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxel in view of Sugeno et al, (Sugeno), (USNO.2014/0354212).
As for claim 3, Troxel discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose predetermined voltage comprises a lower limit voltage used in a discharging operation of the two or more power storage devices, and when the voltages detected by the detection unit reach the lower limit voltage, the control unit executes the current decrease control for decreasing the predetermined discharge current in the discharging operation of the two or more power storage devices
Sugeno discloses predetermined voltage comprises a lower limit voltage used in a discharging operation of the two or more power storage devices, and when the voltages detected by the detection unit reach the lower limit voltage, the control unit executes the current decrease control for decreasing the predetermined discharge current in the discharging operation of the two or more power storage devices (par.[0113-0126])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Troxel by using predetermined voltage comprises a lower limit voltage used in a discharging operation of the two or more power storage devices, and when the voltages detected by the detection unit reach the lower limit voltage, the control unit executes the current decrease control for decreasing the predetermined discharge current in the discharging operation of the two or more power storage devices for advantages such as providing the ability to reduce voltage variance (abstract), as taught by Sugeno.
As for claim 4, Troxel in combination with Sugeno discloses the predetermined voltage comprises an upper limit voltage used in a charging operation of the two or more power storage devices, and when the voltages detected by the detection unit reach the upper limit voltage, the control unit executes the current decrease control for decreasing the predetermined charge current in the charging operation of the two or more power storage devices.
As for claim 6, Troxel in combination with Sugeno discloses the control unit resumes the discharging operation with a current smaller than the current used before the discharging operation is stopped, after a certain period of time has elapsed from stopping the discharging operation of the two or more power storage devices, and
resumes the charging operation with a current smaller than the current used before the charging operation is stopped, after a certain period of time has elapsed from stopping the charging operation of the two or more power storage devices (par.[0113-0126])
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859