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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not concise due to the use of exemplary and verbose language. Remove “According to embodiments described herein” from line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tohara et al (USPGPN 20180149703).
Independent Claim 1, Tohara discloses a method for managing power storage and discharge from or charge to a battery array that includes a plurality of individual batteries (Figs. 1-5, batteries 3-1 to 3-30), the method (¶[86], abstract, Figs. [2 & 4-9]) comprising:
determining an aggregate demand for power from the battery array (Figs. [2, 4, 5] ¶’s [40, 43, 72] describes the aggregate demand PEMS[t] for charge/discharge power from the array);
performing one of discharging or charging via a first battery of the plurality of individual batteries from a first state of charge to a second state of charge based on a test profile configured to characterize the first battery, wherein the test profile is unrelated to the aggregate demand (Figs. 5-9, ¶’s [42, 43, 72], Prem[t] is the aggregate demand compensated for the removal of the Ptest of the first battery); and
performing the one of discharging or charging via a second battery of the plurality of individual batteries to compensate for a difference between power discharged or charged by the first battery according to the test profile and the aggregate demand (¶’s [10-17, 43, 63, 68, 72, 79-85, esp. 43, 72], abstract, Figs. [5-9, esp. 5-7]; unlike claim 13, applicant did not claim that claim that the first and second batteries charge/discharge into each other during this test profile charging/discharging process,
thus by offsetting the power lost by the test battery with the second battery for the aggregate demand according to the aggregate demand, it meets the claimed requirements).
Independent Claim 7, Tohara discloses a system (Figs. 1-5, batteries 3-1 to 3-30) for managing (¶[86], abstract, Figs. [2 & 4-9]) power storage and discharge from or charge to a battery array that includes a plurality of individual batteries, the system comprising:
a processor (1, see esp. Figs. 1 & 3-9, it would take memory); and
a memory (¶[37] states that controller 1 stores data, i.e. in a memory, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands, where to perform steps 2 & 4-9, it would take memory, see ¶’s [57, 65]) including instructions embodied therewith that when executed by the processor perform an operation comprising:
determining an aggregate demand for power from the battery array (Figs. [2, 4, 5] ¶’s [40, 43, 72] describes the aggregate demand PEMS[t] for charge/discharge power from the array);
performing one of discharging or charging via a first battery of the plurality of individual batteries from a first state of charge to a second state of charge based on a test profile configured to characterize the first battery, wherein the test profile is unrelated to the aggregate demand (Figs. 5-9, ¶’s [42, 43, 72], Prem[t] is the aggregate demand compensated for the removal of the Ptest of the first battery); and
performing the one of discharging or charging via a second battery of the plurality of individual batteries based on a difference between power discharged or charged by the first battery according to the test profile and the aggregate demand (¶’s [10-17, 43, 63, 68, 72, 79-85, esp. 43, 72], abstract, Figs. [5-9, esp. 5-7]; unlike claim 13, applicant did not claim that claim that the first and second batteries charge/discharge into each other during this test profile charging/discharging process,
thus by offsetting the power lost by the test battery with the second battery for the aggregate demand according to the aggregate demand, it meets the claimed requirements).
Dependent Claims 2 and 8, Tohara discloses the second battery is operated to cycle between a third state of charge and a fourth state of charge according to an operational profile for the second battery (as shown in Figs. 2, 8, & 9, when batteries are charged and discharged, they are known to cycle between a desired low-charge state [e.g. 0% SOC] and a desired high-charge state [e.g. 100% SOC], see further ¶[37]).
Dependent Claims 4 and 10, Tohara discloses charging a fourth battery of the plurality of individual batteries from a third state to a fourth state according to a second test profile (see Figs. 8a-9d) for the fourth battery while the first and second batteries discharge, wherein an amount of power to charge the fourth battery to the fourth state from the third state is included in the aggregate demand (Claim 6, ¶’s [02, 86] states that each battery will be tested, while more than one can be tested at the same time, Figs. 8 & 9 [esp. b compared to a of each] shows that power for the charge test operation comes from the other batteries, while abstract & ¶’s [42, 72] make clear that the power comes from the other batteries for each test profile).
Dependent Claims 5 and 11, Tohara discloses updating an operational profile for the first battery after cycling the first battery from the second state back to the first state, wherein the operational profile identifies states of charge that the first battery is to operate between (¶’s [74-76] states that the capacity of the battery is modified by the test, i.e. if the original SOC corresponded to 0%-100% of a new battery, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a degraded battery’s capacity would be smaller, so even if the SOC of the new battery may be 0-100% of the current capacity, a degraded battery SOC compared to the new battery would be e.g. 1%-99%, thus by modifying the usable capacity of the degraded battery subjected to the test, it identifies states of charge that the first battery is to operate between).
Dependent Claims 6 and 12, Tohara discloses wherein the one of discharging or charging is discharging and before discharging the first battery based on the test profile, ensuring that the aggregate demand has a total power demand equal to or greater than the power discharged by the first battery from the first state of charge to the second state of charge (in light of the disclosure above, ¶[86] states that multiple batteries can be subjected to the test, where subtraction of that 2nd battery’s contribution to the aggregate demand is disclosed in Figs. 5-9, ¶’s [42, 43, 72], Prem[t] is the aggregate demand compensated for the removal of the Ptest of the first battery).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tohara et al (USPGPN 20180149703) in view of Sato (USPGPN 20110206953)
Dependent Claim 3 and 9, Tohara silent to teach charging a third battery of the plurality of individual batteries when the aggregate demand is exceeded by the power discharged from the first and second batteries (to advance prosecution, this feature is taught by Figs. 8-9, but only during the test profile, not necessarily during the operational profile).
Sato teaches charging a third battery of the plurality of individual batteries when the aggregate demand is exceeded by the power discharged from the first and second batteries (¶’s [32-40, esp. 36], Figs. [1-2C, esp. 2C] teaches when a battery is not needed to discharge to meet the demand, they will be charged by other batteries being discharged). ¶’s [14, 37] states that maintaining the batteries within the range of 20%-80% of their current capacity is the optimal state, where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that this range is known to help to extend the lifetime of the battery. While ¶[40] states that this range can keep the battery voltages uniform [which one of ordinary skill in the art understands can prevent inefficient conversion operations, as the larger the voltage difference, the more inefficient to ], providing improved reliability [reliable uniform voltage]/efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tohara with Sato to provide improved efficiency, lifetime, and reliability.
Dependent Claim 17, Tohara teaches the second battery is operated to cycle between a third state of charge and a fourth state of charge according to an operational profile for the second battery (as shown in Figs. 2, 8, & 9, when batteries are charged and discharged, they are known to cycle between a desired low-charge state [e.g. 0% SOC] and a desired high-charge state [e.g. 100% SOC], see further ¶[37]); and further comprising:
Tohara silent to teach charging a third battery of the plurality of individual batteries when the aggregate demand is exceeded by the power discharged from the first and second batteries (to advance prosecution, this feature is taught by Figs. 8-9, but only during the test profile, not necessarily during the operational profile).
Sato teaches charging a third battery of the plurality of individual batteries when the aggregate demand is exceeded by the power discharged from the first and second batteries (¶’s [32-40, esp. 36], Figs. [1-2C, esp. 2C] teaches when a battery is not needed to discharge to meet the demand, they will be charged by other batteries being discharged). ¶’s [14, 37] states that maintaining the batteries within the range of 20%-80% of their current capacity is the optimal state, where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that this range is known to help to extend the lifetime of the battery. While ¶[40] states that this range can keep the battery voltages uniform [which one of ordinary skill in the art understands can prevent inefficient conversion operations, as the larger the voltage difference, the more inefficient to ], providing improved reliability [reliable uniform voltage]/efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tohara with Sato to provide improved efficiency, lifetime, and reliability.
Dependent Claim 18, Tohara teaches charging a fourth battery of the plurality of individual batteries from a third state to a fourth state according to a second test profile (see Figs. 8a-9d) for the fourth battery while the first and second batteries discharge, wherein an amount of power to charge the fourth battery to the fourth state from the third state is included in the aggregate demand (Claim 6, ¶’s [02, 86] states that each battery will be tested, while more than one can be tested at the same time, Figs. 8 & 9 [esp. b compared to a of each] shows that power for the charge test operation comes from the other batteries, while abstract & ¶’s [42, 72] make clear that the power comes from the other batteries for each test profile).
Dependent Claims 19, Tohara teaches updating an operational profile for the first battery after cycling the first battery from the second state back to the first state, wherein the operational profile identifies states of charge that the first battery is to operate between (¶’s [74-76] states that the capacity of the battery is modified by the test, i.e. if the original SOC corresponded to 0%-100% of a new battery, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a degraded battery’s capacity would be smaller, so even if the SOC of the new battery may be 0-100% of the current capacity, a degraded battery SOC compared to the new battery would be e.g. 1%-99%, thus by modifying the usable capacity of the degraded battery subjected to the test, it identifies states of charge that the first battery is to operate between).
Dependent Claim 20, Tohara teaches wherein the one of discharging or charging is discharging and before discharging the first battery based on the test profile, ensuring that the aggregate demand has a total power demand equal to or greater than the power discharged by the first battery from the first state of charge to the second state of charge (in light of the disclosure above, ¶[86] states that multiple batteries can be subjected to the test, where subtraction of that 2nd battery’s contribution to the aggregate demand is disclosed in Figs. 5-9, ¶’s [42, 43, 72], Prem[t] is the aggregate demand compensated for the removal of the Ptest of the first battery).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tohara et al (USPGPN 20180149703) in view of
Schweitzer et al (USPGPN 20200373767; hereinafter Schwe), Mizutani et al (USPGPN 20130002026; hereinafter Mizu), and Abe et al (USPGPN 20120176091)
Independent Claim 13, Tohara teaches a method (¶[86], abstract, Figs. [2 & 4-9]) for managing power storage and discharge from or charge to a battery array that includes a plurality of individual batteries (Figs. 1-5, batteries 3-1 to 3-30), the method comprising:
segmenting the battery array into:
a first battery group selected for characterization according to a test profile;
a second battery group selected as a backup charging source; a third battery group selected as a backup discharging source (Figs. [8a, 9a, 8b, 9b] demonstrates the other batteries are impacted by the charging/discharging operation of the first battery test); and
a fourth battery group (see groups of Figs. [2, 3, 5];
isolating the first battery group from a load served by the battery array while leaving the fourth battery group connected to supply stored power to the load (see at least Figs. 5-9)
performing a first one of discharging or charging via the second battery group from a first state of charge to a second state of charge via a second one of discharging or charging the first battery group from a third state of charge to a fourth state of charge according to the test profile (see Figs. [8a-9b];
Figs. 5-9, ¶’s [42, 43, 72], Prem[t] is the aggregate demand compensated for the removal of the Ptest of the first battery); and
in response to the first battery group discharging or charging less power when discharging or charging from the third state of charge to the fourth state of charge than the second battery group draws when charging or supplies when discharging from the first state of charge to the second state of charge, supplementing the first battery group via the second one of discharging or charging the third battery group from a fifth state of charge to a sixth state of charge (see Figs. [8a-9b], power is provided if necessary from the other batteries).
Tohara is silent to isolating the first battery group, the second battery group, and the third battery group from a load served by the battery array while leaving the fourth battery group connected to supply stored power to the load (to advance prosecution, performing a test operation while more clearly supplementing power from another battery, and performing priority/hierarchy/ranking for why one battery supplies power over another)
Schwe teaches performing a battery test operation while supplying power from and power to another battery (rather than the system as a whole, which could have been interpreted from the applicant’s claims as they stand according to BRI;
¶[146] states this operation, ¶[63] describes the test more clearly with respect to Fig. 5, Figs. [1 & 9] give relevant structure). Schwe teaches this method serves to improve the efficiency/economy of the testing operation (¶[146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tohara with Schwe to provide improved efficiency.
Tohara is silent to isolating the first battery group, the second battery group, and the third battery group from a load served by the battery array while leaving the fourth battery group connected to supply stored power to the load (to advance prosecution, performing priority/hierarchy/ranking for why one battery supplies power &/or receives power over another)
Abe teaches performing priority/hierarchy/ranking for why one battery supplies power &/or receives power over another, and only discharging/charging in that order before going to the next-lower rank (analogous structure in Figs. [5, 7, 26], method steps of Figs. [11-20, esp. 11 & 13] demonstrates where power is provided to the highest rank absorption battery until that battery’s needs are met, and leftover charging/absorbed power is provided to the next rank and so on {esp. Fig. [13, 15]}, while the opposite is for batteries with the higher emission/discharging rank, with the highest rank discharging until its abilities are covered, and the excess is covered by the next rank and so on {esp. Figs. [11, 14]}). Abe teaches this serves to prevent high temperatures of batteries [which one of ordinary skill in the art understands can be a safety issue due to the likelihood that the battery will be damaged from the high temperatures, which can then explode/inflame/emit-gas/over-heat/deteriorate/shorten-lifespan/short, etc.] (¶’s [04, 05, 41, 94]) as well as improved ease (¶’s [423, 43, 46, 53, 55, 131, 140, 142, 149, 212, 244]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tohara in view of Schwe with Abe to provide improved ease, lifetime, and safety.
Tohara is silent to isolating the first battery group, the second battery group, and the third battery group from a load served by the battery array while leaving the fourth battery group connected to supply stored power to the load
Mizu teaches isolating the first battery group, the second battery group, and the third battery group from a load served by the battery array while leaving the fourth battery group connected to supply stored power to the load (as seen in Fig. 1, you have 4 batteries connectable to a bus LAC for an AC-power source 1 and a load 2 via a bidirectional AC-DC converter;
Multiplexing connections to each battery have four options:
T1 ¶’s [20, 21, 36, 43, 44, 55] is used to connect the selected battery to a load 2;
T2 ¶’s [20, 36, 39, 41, 55] is used to select a connected battery to input power to an internal DC-DC converter which is isolated from load 2, i.e. to discharge;
T3 ¶’s [20, 36, 39, 41, 45, 55] is used to select a connected battery to receive output power from an internal DC-DC converter which is isolated from load 2, i.e. to recharge;
T4 ¶’s [20, 43, 44, 55] is an optional choice to isolate a battery;
thus the structure to perform the operations of charging/discharging one battery to the outside while 3 batteries are isolated and charge/discharged internally is present).
Mizu teaches this system serves to improve efficiency (¶[52]) and reliability (¶’s [35 prevent unstable=reliable, 46]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tohara in view of [Abe and Schwe] with Mizu to provide improved efficiency and reliability.
Dependent Claim 14, the combination of Tohara, Schwe, Mizu, and Abe teaches the second battery group is discharged or charged from the first state of charge to the second state of charge according to a second test profile (Tohara: Claim 6, ¶’s [02, 86] states that each battery will be tested, while more than one can be tested at the same time, Figs. 8 & 9 [esp. b compared to a of each] shows that power for the charge test operation comes from the other batteries, while abstract & ¶’s [42, 72] make clear that the power comes from the other batteries for each test profile; Schwe teaches testing of the batteries, where similar to Tohara, the testing of each battery would result in respective profiles).
Dependent Claim 15, the combination of Tohara, Schwe, Mizu, and Abe teaches the third battery group is selected based on an operational profile of the batteries comprising the third battery group and a difference between a power demand for discharging or charging the second battery group and a power output or power demand from the first battery group (as cited above for Claim 13, Abe describes choosing the batteries based on whether the top rated battery can perform a discharge/emission operation, and selects the next battery based on the amount of power demand left and the power demand of the current battery, i.e. a difference in power).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 5712722312. 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 T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859