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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Determination unit in claims 1-7;
Acquiring unit in claims 2-4;
Computing unit in claims 2-4;
The elements are considered to be functions of a processor, see ¶[36] of the published specification, with the structure of a processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is awkwardly written, and seems to be the result of a machine translation. Please amend the language: “comprising a determination unit, in a state where the switch connected to a part of the plurality of power storage modules being in an on state and the switch connected to a remaining power storage module being in an off state and included in the plurality of power storage modules, the determination unit not permitting the switch in the off state to be turned on when switch is turned on and a maximum value of current or power allowed to charge all of the power storage modules with the switch being turned on is lower than a threshold based on the maximum value before turned on of the switch.”
It is especially confusing due to the underlined and esp. bolded text.
The examiner suggests the applicant amend “switch in the/an on state” to “a/the first switch” and “switch in the/an off state” to “a/the second switch”.
For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the applicant means that the lowest SOC [state of charge] and/or voltage battery is switched on first, then the other batteries are turned on as the lowest SOC/voltage battery meets their values during a charging operation. The switch being turned on is whether the charger is able to handle the charging power required to perform of charging the extra parallel battery being connected.
Examiner suggests the applicant look at rewriting Claims 2-4 as well to improve clarity.
Claim 7 is further objected to, as the 2nd stanza does not involve one of the Markush options of the 1st stanza (namely the external charger). For purposes of examination, the 2nd stanza (“the management device informs a control unit inside the mobile object of a maximum value of current or power allowed to regenerate power from the motor to all of the power storage modules”) will not be necessary to meet in a prior art rejection if the external charger is met by the prior art.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting Note
The examiner notes to the applicant to be aware of Claims 8-14 of app #18041691 when performing amendments to both the instant application and the reference application. The claims in each application are currently distinct enough to not require a double patenting at this time. However, amendments may result in future double patenting rejections.
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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Books et al (USPGPN 20210226267).
Independent Claim 1, Books discloses a management device that manages a plurality of power storage modules each parallel-connected to a power supply through a switch (Figs. [1, 7A-7C, 9, 14, 16, esp. 1, 14, 16]), comprising
a determination unit (¶[40], and/or BMS of Figs. [14, 16], see 112f interpretation),
in a state where the switch connected to a part of the plurality of power storage modules being in an on state and the switch connected to a remaining power storage module being in an off state and included in the plurality of power storage modules, the determination unit not permitting the switch in the off state to be turned on when switch is turned on and a maximum value of current or power allowed to charge all of the power storage modules with the switch being turned on is lower than a threshold based on the maximum value before turned on of the switch (switches shown in each of Figs. [1, 7A-7C, 9, 14, 16, esp. 1, 14, 16], method described in each of Figs. [4, 5, 8, esp. 4, 8], describes that the lowest battery is charged until reaching the next lowest battery, then the next lowest battery is charged also, where Fig. 6 and ¶’s [50-53] describes ensuring that the current/power does not exceed a threshold, see claim objection interpretation, as well as [912, 919, 920] of Fig. 8).
Dependent Claim 5, Books discloses a switch connected to a power storage module with a lowest open circuit voltage in the power storage modules is turned on when power from the power supply to the power storage modules starts being supplied (902 & 904 of Fig.8, 202 & 204 of Fig.4, 302 & 304 of Fig. 5) and
a power storage module with the lowest open circuit voltage in power storage modules connected to switches in an off state is a connection candidate a switch to be turned on next (see Figs. [4, 5, 8, esp. 914-918 of Fig. 8]).
Dependent Claim 6, Books discloses a power supply system comprising:
the management device of claim 1 (see citation of Claim 1 above); and
the plurality of power storage modules each parallel-connected to the power supply through the switch (batteries in the figures as cited for Claim 1, e.g. Fig. 1).
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 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Books et al (USPGPN 20210226267) in view of Watanabe et al (WO 2018225417 A1; as evidenced by USPGPN 20200169105, which is the English translation of it, and where the paragraph numbers will be drawn from; hereinafter Wata), as evidenced by Ramon ( “State of Charge, Health
and Power in batteries. Definition,” R Ramon, Epic Power Converters S.L. , published online May 2020, accessed Online Nov 19 2025, https://epicpower.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/AN028_SoC-SoH-SoP-definitions_v3.pdf )
Dependent Claim 2, Books teaches an acquiring unit that acquires at least a state of charge of each of the power storage modules (112f interpretation, abstract shows determination of voltage and SOC occur at the same time and are considered functionally equivalent) and
a computing unit (112f interpretation)
Book is silent to estimates a maximum value of current or power allowed to charge all of the power storage modules based on SOC-maximum charge characteristics defining relationship between a state of charge of each of the power storage modules and a maximum value of current or power allowed to charge each of the power storage modules, the SOC-maximum charge characteristics represent that a higher SOC of each of the power storage modules results in a lower maximum value of current or power allowed to charge each of the power storage modules.
Wata teaches estimates a maximum value of current or power allowed to charge all of the power storage modules based on SOC-maximum charge characteristics defining relationship between a state of charge of each of the power storage modules and a maximum value of current or power allowed to charge each of the power storage modules, the SOC-maximum charge characteristics represent that a higher SOC of each of the power storage modules results in a lower maximum value of current or power allowed to charge each of the power storage modules (¶[26 in the US document of Wata], which describes that for higher SOC, the SOP decreases for each battery, which in view of Books means the SOP/maximum value of current or power allowed, see esp. Books Fig. 6). Ramon provides evidence that this SOP [state of power] is the maximum power allowable, known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Ramon further provides evidence that using control in view of SOP serves to extend the life expectance of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Books with Wata to provide improved life expectancy.
Dependent Claim 3, the combination of Books and Wata teaches the acquiring unit acquires an open circuit voltage of a power storage module as a connection candidate in the remaining power storage module (as noted by Books’ cited Figs., the batteries disconnected are in an open-circuit state as their switches are off, so their voltage detection is met),
the computing unit, based on the SOC-maximum charge characteristics and a state of charge of each of power storage modules connected to the power supply among the plurality of power storage modules, derives a maximum value of current or power allowed to charge each of the power storage modules connected to the power supply, and estimates closed circuit voltage of each of the power storage modules connected to the power supply when each of the power storage modules connected to the power supply is charged with the maximum value, and
the determination unit does not permit a switch connected to the power storage module as a connection candidate to be turned on when open circuit voltage of the power storage module as a connection candidate is higher than the closed circuit voltage (Books: see esp. Fig. 6 in view of Figs. [4, 5, 8], where the threshold value, along with the phase II of Fig. 6 demonstrates this concept of bringing the packs online when required, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, and the bus voltage 122 is higher than the OCV voltages 124 in Fig. 6, Wata describes the SOP and SOC, while the correlation is further demonstrated on ¶[22] of Wata, which has that the SOC is correlated to the OCV, which is well known to be a map).
Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Books and Wata teaches the computing unit estimates a maximum value of current or power allowed to charge all of the power storage modules when open circuit voltage of each of the power storage modules connected to the power supply corresponds with open circuit voltage of the power storage module as a connection candidate, after the switch connected to the power storage module as a connection candidate is turned on, based on the SOC-maximum charge characteristics, an open circuit voltage corresponding to open circuit voltage of each of the power storage modules connected to the power supply, and an open circuit voltage corresponding to open circuit voltage of the power storage module as a connection candidate (see power estimations shown for Figs. [3, 6] in light of Figs. [4, 5, 8, esp. 8] of Books, which has that the power is adjusted so that the maximum value will be lower than a maximum value before the switch is turned on), and
the determination unit does not permit the switch to be turned on when a maximum value estimated is lower than a maximum value before the switch is turned on (Wata’s comparison of SOC with SOP, where ¶[26] specifically has that the SOP will decrease at least for charging as the SOC becomes higher, which Books connects the next battery the higher it gets).
Dependent Claim7, Books is silent to an external charger (claim objection interpretation)
Wata teaches an external charger (2 is called a power grid). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by powering the batteries by an external charger, they can be reliably powered without having to wait for an internal generator, or taking power from another battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Books with Wata to provide improved reliability.
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