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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 12/14/2022 claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 10-14 are amended. Claims 1 and 10 are independent.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “BATTER” in the title of Fig. 3 would need to be corrected to “BATTERY”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 14 replace “a” with --the-- and in line 16 remove “determined” so that in both instances it reads “the total power” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis. For examination purposes below, these will be interpreted as “the total power of the parallel multi pack module”, however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 replace “a” with --the-- so that it reads “the parallel multi pack module” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis. For examination purposes below, these will be interpreted as “the parallel multi pack module”, however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 replace “a” with --the-- so that it reads “the parallel multi pack module” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis. For examination purposes below, these will be interpreted as “the parallel multi pack module”, however, appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (USPGPN 20200303929, identified in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)), hereinafter Watanabe ‘929, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (USPGPN 20200169105), hereinafter Watanabe ‘105.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 10, Watanabe ‘929 teaches an apparatus and method for controlling a power of a parallel multi pack module (Fig. 1; a control system 100 for controlling a power of a power supply system 1000).
Watanabe ‘929 teaches first to nth sensor circuits respectively configured to measure operation characteristic values including measured current values of first to nth battery packs that are included in the parallel multi pack module and connected to each other in parallel (Fig. 1; battery management units (BMUs) 12 configured to measure operation characteristic values including measured current values of power supply units (PSUs) 10 that are included in the power supply system 1000 and each connected to each other in parallel).
Watanabe ‘929 teaches a power management circuit configured to control a power consumed in a load or a power provided to the parallel multi pack module by a charging device to correspond to a total power of the parallel multi pack module (Fig. 1; a system controller 160 configured to control power discharged to the power system ES (i.e., consumed in a load; see ¶[15]) or a power provided to the power system 1000 by a power conditioner 140 to correspond to a total power of the power system ES).
Watanabe ‘929 teaches a multi pack management circuit operatively coupled to the first to nth sensor circuits and the power management circuit (Fig. 1; a master battery management unit (M-BMU) 120 operatively coupled to the BMUs 12 and the system controller 160).
Watanabe ‘929 teaches wherein the multi pack management circuit is configured to determine a minimum available power of the first to nth battery packs based on the operation characteristic values of the first to nth battery packs respectively received from the first to nth sensor circuits (Fig. 1; ¶[49]; the M-BMU 120 is configured to determine a min(SOP) for each PSU 10 based on the operation characteristic values of the PSUs 10 received from the BMUs 12).
Watanabe ‘929 teaches to determine a total power of the parallel multi pack module from the minimum available power (Fig. 1; ¶[49]; a total power SOP for the power system 1000 is determined from the min(SOP)).
Watanabe ‘929 teaches to transmit the determined total power of the parallel multi pack module to the power management circuit (Fig. 1; transmit the total power SOP to the system controller 160).
Watanabe ‘929 teaches wherein the power management circuit is configured to control the power consumed in the load or the power provided to the parallel multi pack module by the charging device to correspond to the total power of the parallel multi pack module (Fig. 1; the system controller 160 is configured to control the discharge to the power system ES (i.e., the power consumed in the load) or the charge to the PSUs 10 (i.e., the power provided) by the power conditioner 140 to correspond to the total power SOP of the power system 1000).
However, Watanabe ‘929 fails to explicitly teach determining a total power from a ratio of a summed current value to a maximum current value among the measured current values of the first to nth battery packs.
Watanabe ‘105 teaches determining a total power from a ratio of a summed current value to a maximum current value among the measured current values of the first to nth battery packs (¶[31]; system SOP = minimum rack SOP * (total rack current/maximum rack current)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Watanabe ‘105’s ratio calculation method to Watanabe ‘929’s power system in order to have a parallel battery power system that prevents the battery pack with the highest current from exceeding safety limits. The advantage of this being a storage power system may continue stable operation in the event one of the battery pack’s does not operate accordingly (see ¶[08] in Watanabe ‘105).
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 14, Watanabe ‘929 teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 10, respectively. However, Watanabe ‘929 fails to explicitly teach wherein the multi pack management circuit is configured to calculate the total power (Ptotal) of the parallel multi pack module using the following equation: P total=min(P pack,k)*I total/max(I pack,k), wherein k is an integer from 1 to n; min(Ppack,k) corresponds to a minimum available power among the available powers of the first to nth battery packs; Itotal corresponds to a summed current value for the measured current values of the first to nth battery packs; and max(Ipack,k) corresponds to a maximum current value among the measured current values of the first to nth battery packs.
Watanabe ‘105 teaches wherein the multi pack management circuit is configured to calculate the total power (Ptotal) of the parallel multi pack module using the following equation: P total=min(P pack,k)*I total/max(I pack,k), wherein k is an integer from 1 to n; min(Ppack,k) corresponds to a minimum available power among the available powers of the first to nth battery packs; Itotal corresponds to a summed current value for the measured current values of the first to nth battery packs; and max(Ipack,k) corresponds to a maximum current value among the measured current values of the first to nth battery packs (¶[31]; system SOP = minimum rack SOP * (total rack current/maximum rack current)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Watanabe ‘105’s ratio calculation method to Watanabe ‘929’s power system in order to have a parallel battery power system that prevents the battery pack with the highest current from exceeding safety limits. The advantage of this being a storage power system may continue stable operation in the event one of the battery pack’s does not operate accordingly (see ¶[08] in Watanabe ‘105).
With respect to claim 6, Watanabe ‘929 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Watanabe ‘929 fails to explicitly teach a communication circuit interposed between the multi pack management circuit and the power management circuit.
Considering MPEP 2144.04 II. B. (below), the multi pack management circuit and the power management circuit as taught by Watanabe ‘929 do not require a communication circuit interposed in between to allow for communication to happen between these.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to not include a communication circuit interposed between the multi pack management circuit and the power management circuit, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
MPEP 2144.04 II. B. Omission of an Element with Retention of the Element's Function Is an Indicium of Nonobviousness
Note that the omission of an element and retention of its function is an indicium of nonobviousness. In re Edge, 359 F.2d 896, 149 USPQ 556 (CCPA 1966) (Claims at issue were directed to a printed sheet having a thin layer of erasable metal bonded directly to the sheet wherein said thin layer obscured the original print until removal by erasure. The prior art disclosed a similar printed sheet which further comprised an intermediate transparent and erasure-proof protecting layer which prevented erasure of the printing when the top layer was erased. The claims were found nonobvious over the prior art because although the transparent layer of the prior art was eliminated, the function of the transparent layer was retained since appellant’s metal layer could be erased without erasing the printed indicia.).
With respect to claim 8, Watanabe ‘929 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Watanabe ‘929 teaches a battery management system, comprising the apparatus for controlling power of a parallel multi pack module (Fig. 1; the system illustrated).
Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe ‘929 and Watanabe ‘105, and further in view of Cha et al. (USPGPN 20170123011, identified in the IDS).
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 11, Watanabe ‘929 teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 10, respectively. Further, Watanabe ‘929 teaches determine pack resistances of the first to nth battery packs, respectively, from the measured current values and the measured voltage values of the first to nth battery packs (¶[12]; an internal resistance is determined for each PSU 10 which is understood to be determined from the measured current and voltage values of each PSU 10).
Watanabe ‘929 teaches determine a minimum value among the available powers as the minimum available power (¶[49]; a minimum SOP).
However, Watanabe ‘929 fails to explicitly teach determine an available power corresponding to the pack resistance with reference to a predetermined pack resistance-available power look-up table for each battery pack.
Cha teaches determine an available power corresponding to the pack resistance with reference to a predetermined pack resistance-available power look-up table (¶[171]; the power is calculated with reference to a resistance factor look-up table).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Cha’s resistance lookup table to power calculation method to Watanabe ‘929’s power system in order to have a parallel battery power system that prevents the battery pack with the highest current from exceeding safety limits by considering the internal resistance values of each battery pack. The advantage of this is that it enables easily determining resistance factor utilized for estimating charge output of the battery in a safety margin so as to improve reliability of charge output estimation of the battery (see ¶[37] in Cha).
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 13, Watanabe ‘929 teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 4 and 10, respectively. Further, Watanabe ‘929 teaches determine a state of charge (SOC) of each of the first to nth battery packs based on the operation characteristic value of each battery pack received from a corresponding one of the first to nth sensor circuits (¶[12]; SOC is determined for each PSU 10 which is understood to be determined from the characteristics of each PSU 10 received by its respective BMU 12).
Watanabe ‘929 teaches determine a minimum value among the available powers as the minimum available power (¶[49]; a minimum SOP).
However, Watanabe ‘929 fails to explicitly teach determine an available power corresponding to the SOC of each of the first to nth battery packs with reference to a predefined SOC-available power look-up table.
Cha teaches determine an available power corresponding to the SOC with reference to a predefined SOC-available power look-up table (¶[168-172]; the power is calculated with reference to a predefined SOC-available power look-up table).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Cha’s predefined SOC-available power look-up table calculation method to Watanabe ‘929’s power system in order to have a parallel battery power system that prevents the battery pack with the highest current from exceeding safety limits by considering the power of each battery pack by referring to a predefined SOC-available power look-up table. The advantage of this is that it enables easily determining resistance factor utilized for estimating charge output of the battery in a safety margin so as to improve reliability of charge output estimation of the battery (see ¶[37] in Cha).
With respect to claim 7, Watanabe ‘929 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. However, Watanabe ‘929 fails to explicitly teach wherein the parallel multi pack module is mounted to an electric-driven vehicle, and the power management circuit is included in a control system of the electric-driven vehicle.
Cha teaches wherein the battery module is mounted to an electric-driven vehicle, and the power management circuit is included in a control system of the electric-driven vehicle (¶[04 and 151]; the battery is mounted in an electric vehicle with a vehicle controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Cha’s electric vehicle to Watanabe ‘929’s power system in order to have a parallel battery power system that prevents the battery pack with the highest current from exceeding safety limits as part of an electric vehicle. The advantage of this is that it enables easily determining resistance factor utilized for estimating charge output of the battery in a safety margin so as to improve reliability of charge output estimation of the battery (see ¶[37] in Cha) applied to an electric vehicle.
With respect to claim 9, Watanabe ‘929 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Watanabe ‘929 fails to explicitly teach an electric driving mechanism, comprising the apparatus for controlling power of a parallel multi pack module.
Cha teaches an electric driving mechanism, comprising the apparatus for controlling power of a parallel multi pack module (¶[04 and 151]; the battery is mounted in an electric vehicle with a vehicle controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Cha’s electric vehicle to Watanabe ‘929’s power system in order to have a parallel battery power system that prevents the battery pack with the highest current from exceeding safety limits as part of an electric vehicle. The advantage of this is that it enables easily determining resistance factor utilized for estimating charge output of the battery in a safety margin so as to improve reliability of charge output estimation of the battery (see ¶[37] in Cha) applied to an electric vehicle.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe ‘929, Watanabe ‘105, and Cha, and further in view of Tomura et al. (USPGPN 20100153038).
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 12, Watanabe ‘929 teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 2 and 11, respectively. However, Watanabe ‘929 fails to explicitly teach periodically receive a measured voltage value and a measured current value of each battery pack from a corresponding one of the first to nth sensor circuits, and determine an average ratio of a voltage change to a current change calculated from the measured current values and the measured voltage values of the first to nth battery packs by means of linear regression analysis as the pack resistance of the first to nth battery packs.
Tomura teaches periodically receive a measured voltage value and a measured current value of the battery pack from a corresponding one of the first to nth sensor circuits (Figs. 1 and 5; sensors 20/30/40 periodically (e.g., every predetermined arithmetic period; see ¶[115]) measure voltage and current of secondary battery 10).
Tomura teaches determine an average ratio of a voltage change to a current change calculated from the measured current values and the measured voltage values of the battery pack by means of linear regression analysis as the pack resistance of the battery pack (¶[50]; resistance is determined by means of a linear regression analysis by the measured current and voltage values of the battery pack in which one of ordinary skill understands is done so by determining the ratio of a voltage change to a current change).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Tomura’s linear regression calculation method to Watanabe ‘929’s power system in order to have a parallel battery power system that prevents the battery pack with the highest current from exceeding safety limits by considering the resistance values of the battery packs calculated using a linear regression method. The advantage of this is that it allows dynamic estimation of an internal state of the secondary battery, prevents degrading of estimation accuracy due to an influence by changes in parameter value corresponding to changes in battery state when parameter identification in a battery model equation is performed, and ensures an estimation accuracy of the battery model corresponding to secular change of the battery. (see ¶[13] in Tomura).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following have been identified in the IDS and/or Foreign Office Actions however were not used for citation purposes.
US-2020185944 teaches limiting power over time so no single battery can deliver excessive current.
US-20190067758 (corresponding to KR-20180114156) teaches measuring the internal resistance of each individual battery in order to identify the low resistance battery.
US-2018026311 teaches adding resistance to a cell with the lowest internal resistance thereby limiting current.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859