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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 7, 18, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 6 & 18 both recite “when the charging rate of the electric storage device increases from the first charging rate to a predetermined charging rate exceeding the second charging rate, voltage value of the upper limit of the predetermined voltage range … shifts toward low-voltage side” and “when the charging rate of the electric storage device decreases from the first charging rate to a predetermined charging rate lower than the third charging rate, voltage value of the lower limit of the predetermined voltage range … shifts toward high-voltage side”. As described in Specification paragraph ¶0050, these appear to be claimed opposite to the invention described. Paragraph ¶0050 recites “when the charging rate of the stationary-type electric storage device 14 drops from the first charging rate to a predetermined charging rate exceeding the second charging rate, the voltage value at the upper limit of a predetermined voltage range … shifts toward the low-voltage side” and “when the charging rate of the stationary-type electric storage device 14 increases from the first charging rate to a predetermined charging rate lower than the third charging rate, the voltage value at the lower limit of the predetermined voltage range … shifts toward the high-voltage side”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 19, & 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 & 19 recite the limitation "a predetermined charging rate exceeding the second charging rate" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is already a “predetermined charging rate exceeding the second charging rate” recited in claim 6 and so it is unclear if this is referring to a new predetermined charging rate or the previously introduced charging rate. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this to read as “the predetermined charging rate exceeding the second charging rate”.
Claims 7 & 19 recite the limitation "a predetermined charging rate lower than the third charging rate" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is already a “predetermined charging rate lower than the third charging rate” recited in claims 6 & 18, respectively, and so it is unclear if this is referring to a new predetermined charging rate or the previously introduced charging rate. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this to read as “the predetermined charging rate lower than the third charging rate”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the control unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a previously recited “central control unit” in claim 20 but there is no previously recited “control unit”, and so it is unclear if this is referring to a new control unit or the previously introduced central control unit. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this to read as “a control unit of the electric power converter”, as recited in claim 9 which claim 21 appears to recite the same limitations as a system.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 9, 11-15, 20, 21, & 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashita et al. (WIPO Publication WO 2019/103059 A1 which has the US equivalent publication USPGPN 2020/0280183; hereinafter citing the US equivalent for ease of reference).
Regarding Claims 13 & 1, Yamashita (Figs.1 & 5) teaches an electric power system comprising an electric power element (40) including:
an electric power converter (42A);
and an electric storage device (41) electrically connected to the electric power converter, wherein
the electric power converter is configured to refer to, according to voltage measured (Bus Voltage) by the electric power converter, a reference function (42B/Fig.7-section a) as output target for the electric storage device (41), the reference function having drooping characteristic (¶0110) and representing a control target function (42e: driving circuit is controlling the function of the DC-DC conversion unit),
the reference function has a constant-input-output region over a predetermined voltage range (Fig.7, no charge or discharge power between charge/discharge thresholds in section a), and
the reference function is updated based on battery status of the electric storage device (¶0045: operation instructions and thresholds are determined based on battery status, e.g. voltage, current, and temperature, therefore a change in battery status would result in an updated reference function).
Regarding Claims 14 & 2, Yamashita (Fig.5) further teaches wherein the electric storage device is a stationary-type electric storage device (41),
a control unit (42d) of the electric power converter is configured to perform control based on the reference function for generating target value at time of performing local-control of the stationary-type electric storage device according to the voltage measured by the electric power converter (bus voltage measured by 42a),
the reference function has a constant-input-output region in which input-output of the stationary-type electric storage device is maintained at a constant value over a predetermined voltage range (Fig.7, no charge or discharge power between charge/discharge thresholds in section a), and
the reference function having the constant-input- output region is updated based on battery status of the stationary-type electric storage device (¶0045: operation instructions and thresholds are determined based on battery status, e.g. voltage, current, and temperature, therefore a change in battery status would result in an updated reference function).
Regarding Claims 15 & 3, Yamashita further teaches wherein change in battery status of the electric storage device represents change in charging rate, or change in deterioration state, or change in C rating (¶0045: operation instructions and thresholds are determined based on battery status including current; a C-rate is a charging or discharging current divided by battery capacity, therefore a change in current would equate to a change in C-rate).
Regarding Claims 20 & 8, Yamashita further teaches a central control (Fig.1, 80) unit that controls the electric power converter, wherein secondary control, which is meant for updating a reference function having drooping characteristic, is performed based on a command issued by the central control unit. (¶0045: monitoring-&-instruction device determines operation instructions and thresholds and transmits to sub-stabilizing devices).
Regarding Claims 21 & 9, Yamashita further teaches a control unit of the electric power converter performs control, which is based on the reference function, based on local voltage of the electric storage device and without involving a command from the central control unit (Fig.5, charge-&-discharge control unit 42d outputs to the driving unit based on measured voltage of the power storage device; ¶0064: charge-&-discharge control unit outputs charge or discharge instructions).
Regarding Claims 23 & 11, Yamashita further teaches the reference function having drooping characteristic is configured to vary input-output amount of electric power or electric current according to variation in voltage (Fig.7, section a: charge and discharge power are varied according to voltage variation).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamashita further teaches the electric power converter is a DC/DC converter (Fig.5, 42A).
Regarding Claim 24, Yamashita further teaches a line to which the electric power element is electrically connected is a DC bus (Fig.5, 70).
Regarding Claim 25, Yamashita (Fig.5) teaches a control method for an electric power converter (42A) electrically connected to an electric storage device (41), the control method comprising:
a step of referring to, according to voltage measured (Bus Voltage) by the electric power converter, a reference function (42B/Fig.7-section a) as output target for the electric storage device (41), the reference function having drooping characteristic (¶0110) and representing a control target function (42e: driving circuit is controlling the function of the DC-DC conversion unit);
a step of updating the reference function based on battery status of the electric storage device (¶0045: operation instructions and thresholds are determined based on battery status, e.g. voltage, current, and temperature, therefore a change in battery status would result in an updated reference function), wherein
the reference function has a constant-input-output region over a predetermined voltage range (Fig.7, no charge or discharge power between charge/discharge thresholds in section a).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 16, & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita.
Regarding Claims 4 & 16, Yamashita further teaches wherein input-output in the constant-input-output region is equal to 0 (Fig.7-section a, no charge or discharge power is supplied when bus voltage is within the charge and discharge thresholds).
Yamashita fails to explicitly teach this being zero when the charging rate of the electric storage device is a first charging rate (Examiner’s Note: Charging rate is interpreted to mean a state of charge/SOC of the electric storage device).
However, Yamashita explains that the charge & discharge thresholds are generated based on a measured voltage of the sub-stabilizing device (¶0045), and the SOC of the sub-stabilizing device can be determined using the well-known voltage method of generating an SOC.
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 Yamashita to have the constant-input-output region equal to 0 when the charging rate of the electric storage device is a first charging rate. Using a state of charge value allows for a more precise determination of the capacity of the battery when compared to a measured voltage value of the battery, which may remain consistent across multiple points of a voltage curve.
Regarding Claims 10 & 22, Yamashita discloses the claimed invention except for a control cycle of the secondary control is not explicitly disclosed as a being longer than a control cycle that is based on the reference function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to set the control cycle of the secondary control to be a value longer than a control cycle based on the reference function, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Doing so would allow the system time to respond to the secondary control to account for transmission delays between a central controller and distributed power systems.
Claim(s) 5 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita, in view of Kobayashi et al. (Japanese Publication JP 2012041241 – published 2013).
Regarding Claims 5 & 17, Yamashita fails to explicitly teach wherein the reference function having drooping characteristic is updated such that when charging rate of the electric storage device drops to be equal to or lower than a second charging rate that is lower than the first charging rate, the constant- input-output region shifts toward input region in which charging current is supplied to the electric storage device, and when charging rate of the electric storage device increases to be equal to or higher than a third charging rate that is higher than the first charging rate, the constant-input-output region shifts toward output region in which the electric storage device is discharged.
However, Kobayashi teaches charging a secondary battery when the charging rate of the battery is below an operation lower limit value (Fig.7-B, time t7-t9) and discharging the secondary battery when the charging rate of the battery is above an operation upper limit (Fig.7-B, time t3-t4).
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 Yamashita with Kobayashi to include second charging rate and third charging rate, where charging current is provided when the charging rate of the electric storage device is below the second charging rate and the electric storage device is discharged when the charging rate of the electric storage device is above the third charging rate. Doing so allows the system to avoid overcharging or over discharging the electric storage device.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita, in view of Liu (USPGPN 2019/0334349).
Regarding Claim 26, Yamashita (Figs.1 & 5) teaches the control method for an electric power system including an electric power element (40) including an electric power converter (42A) and an electric storage device (41) electrically connected to the electric power converter, the method including:
refer to, according to voltage measured (Bus Voltage) by the electric power converter, a reference function (42B/Fig.7-section a) as output target for the electric storage device (41) by the electric power converter (42A), the reference function having drooping characteristic (¶0110) and representing a control target function (42e: driving circuit is controlling the function of the DC-DC conversion unit),
update the reference function based on battery status of the electric storage device, wherein (¶0045: operation instructions and thresholds are determined based on battery status, e.g. voltage, current, and temperature, therefore a change in battery status would result in an updated reference function).
the reference function has a constant-input-output region over a predetermined voltage range (Fig.7, no charge or discharge power between charge/discharge thresholds in section a).
Yamashita fails to explicitly teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program which causes a processor to execute the method.
However, Liu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program which causes a processor to execute a control method for an electric power system (¶0011: memory storing instructions causes a processor to execute control of DC/DC converters for supplying battery power).
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 stored the method on a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, via a program, for a processor to execute the method. Doing so allows a computer system to execute the desired control without the need for human response and improves the consistency in repeated control that computers provide.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Naoi et al. (WIPO Publication WO 2016/204214) teaches a system which adjusts the dead zone limits based on the state of charge of the storage battery.
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