DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, in relation to claims 1 and 10, that the prior art of record fails to disclose or teach the main feature of “the two flywheel energy storage modules are not coaxial with each other”.
Newly relied upon prior art Jensen (US 5,460,239) discloses the limitations: two flywheel energy storage modules (12a-12b) (Fig.2) each comprising a casing (44a-44b), a shaft, and a flywheel (Col.4, Lines 63-67); the flywheels of the two flywheel energy storage modules (12a-12b) have opposite rotation directions (Fig.2), substantially a same absolute value of angular velocity, and substantially a same absolute value of angular acceleration (Col.5, Lines 49-51); the two flywheel energy storage modules (12a-12b) are not coaxial to each other (Fig.2) (Col.4, Lines 63-65).
The rejections of claims 1 and 10 are based on the combination of Ellis in view of Palti and Jensen as seen in the office action below.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 2021/0170897) in view of Palti (US 2010/0282528) and Jensen (US 5,460,239).
Claims 1 and 10: Ellis teaches a charging system (Fig.2), configured to charge an electric vehicle (Par.24; Via port 115) (Fig.1), comprising:
a plurality of movable energy storage devices (100/MCU) (Par.24) (Fig.1), wherein each of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (100/MCU) comprises:
a carrier (110) (Par.24); and
at least one energy storage set (105) comprising two flywheel energy storage modules (Par.23); and
an operation center (charging hub/200) comprising a charging station and a controller which is in communication connection with the plurality of movable energy storage devices (105) (Par.27 and 31);
wherein the controller is configured for instructing at least one of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (105) to move to the charging station for the charging station to charge the at least one energy storage set (Par.23 and 49), or
the controller is configured for instructing at least one of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (105) to move to the electric vehicle for the at least one energy storage set to charge the electric vehicle (Par.22 and 50-51).
Ellis does not explicitly teach a dynamic balancer disposed on the carrier; the two flywheel energy storage modules disposed on the dynamic balancer and dynamically balanced with respect to the carrier through the dynamic balancer; wherein each of the two flywheel energy storage modules comprises a casing, a shaft, and a flywheel, the casing is disposed on the dynamic balancer, the shaft is disposed in the casing, the flywheel is disposed on the shaft and rotatable in the casing by taking the shaft as a rotation axis, the flywheels of the two flywheel energy storage modules have opposite rotation directions, substantially a same absolute value of angular velocity, and substantially a same absolute value of angular acceleration.
Palti teaches a dynamic balancer (60) disposed on a carrier (101) (Par.58); two flywheel energy storage modules (72 and 74) disposed on the dynamic balancer (60) and dynamically balanced with respect to the carrier (101) through the dynamic balancer (60) (Par.58-59); each of the two flywheel energy storage modules (72 and 74) comprises a casing (rotating frame), a shaft (2), and a flywheel, the casing (rotating frame) is disposed on the dynamic balancer (60), the shaft (2) is disposed in the casing (rotating frame), the flywheel is disposed on the shaft (2) and rotatable in the casing (rotating frame) by taking the shaft as a rotation axis (Fig.7) (Par.58-59), the flywheels of the two flywheel energy storage modules (72 and 74) have opposite rotation directions (76 and 78) (Fig.7), substantially a same absolute value of angular velocity, and substantially a same absolute value of angular acceleration (Par.58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Palti in the system of Ellis to have had added to the carrier stabilization with respect to undesired movements or changes in orientation (Par.59); and have had prevented a gyro effect thereby reducing effects on the maneuverability of the carrier (Par.58).
The combination of Ellis in view of Palti does not explicitly teach the two flywheel energy storage modules are not coaxial to each other.
Jensen teaches two flywheel energy storage modules (12a-12b) (Fig.2) each comprising a casing (44a-44b), a shaft, and a flywheel (Col.4, Lines 63-67); the flywheels of the two flywheel energy storage modules (12a-12b) have opposite rotation directions (Fig.2), substantially a same absolute value of angular velocity, and substantially a same absolute value of angular acceleration (Col.5, Lines 49-51); the two flywheel energy storage modules (12a-12b) are not coaxial to each other (Fig.2) (Col.4, Lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Jensen in the combination of Ellis in view of Palti to have had cancelled momentum vectors to prevent instability (Col.5, Lines 49-58) utilizing an arrangement of contiguous flywheels (Col.4, Lines 63-65) for ease of manufacturing and assembling (Col.5, Lines 8-10).
Claim 7: Ellis in view of Palti and Jensen teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Ellis teaches wherein the controller is configured to receive a charging request of the electric vehicle, and the charging request comprises a charging requirement (location) of the electric vehicle (Par.97); the controller sends a dispatch instruct comprising the charging requirement to the at least one of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (100/MCU) based on the charging request so that the at least one of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (100/MCU) moves to the electric vehicle to charge the electric vehicle (Par.97).
Claim 16: in view of Palti and Jensen teach the limitations of claim 10 as disclosed above. Ellis teaches a charging method of an electric vehicle, comprising:
sending a charging request to a controller of an operation center (Fig.4) by an electric vehicle, wherein the charging request comprises a charging requirement (location) of the electric vehicle (Par.97); and sending a dispatch instruct to at least one movable energy storage device (100/MCU) by the controller according to the charging request so that the at least one movable energy storage device (100/MCU) moves to the electric vehicle and charges the electric vehicle (Par.94), wherein the dispatch instruct comprises the charging requirement (location)(Par.97).
Claim 20: in view of Palti and Jensen teach the limitations of claim 16 as disclosed above. Ellis teaches wherein the dispatch instruct further comprises a time point for charging, the at least one movable energy storage device (100/MCU) moves to the electric vehicle and begins to charge the electric vehicle at the time point for charging, and the controller puts the at least one movable energy storage device (100/MCU) on a charging schedule (Par.30 and 109; Charging of an electric vehicle can be reserved from a movable energy storage device at a given location for a specific block of time.).
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 2021/0170897) in view of Palti (US 2010/0282528) and Jensen (US 5,460,239) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Youn (US 2019/0389518).
Claims 3 and 12: Ellis in view of Palti and Jensen teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as disclosed above. Ellis teaches wherein each of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (100/MCU) further comprises: at least one deflection wheel, located at a side of the carrier (110), wherein the carrier (110) is movable with respect to the operation center through the at least one deflection wheel (Fig.2) (Par.22 and 24; Wheels on the trailer that allow movement of the trailer.).
Ellis does not explicitly teach wherein a dynamic balancer is pivotably disposed on the carrier, the casings of the two flywheel energy storage modules are pivotably disposed on the dynamic balancer, and a pivoting axis of the dynamic balancer with respect to the carrier is in non-parallel with each of pivoting axes of the casings of the two flywheel energy storage modules with respect to the dynamic balancer.
Palti teaches wherein the dynamic balancer (60) is pivotably disposed on the carrier (101), the casings of the two flywheel energy storage modules (72 and 74) are pivotably disposed on the dynamic balancer (60), and a pivoting axis of the dynamic balancer (60) with respect to the carrier (101) is in non-parallel with each of pivoting axes of the casings of the two flywheel energy storage modules (72 and 74) with respect to the dynamic balancer (60) (Par.58).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Palti in the system of Ellis to have had prevented a gyro effect thereby reducing effects on the maneuverability of the carrier (Par.58).
The combination of Ellis in view of Palti does not explicitly teach at least one deflection assembly, connected to and located between the at least one deflection wheel and the casing of the at least one of the two flywheel energy storage modules; wherein a pivoting motion of the dynamic balancer with respect to the carrier drives the two flywheel energy storage modules to pivot with respect to the dynamic balancer, such that one of the two flywheel energy storage modules changes a travelling direction of the at least one deflection wheel through the at least one deflection assembly.
Youn teaches a movable energy storage device (Fig.1) comprising: at least one deflection wheel (110), located at a side of a carrier (body) (Par.31); at least one deflection assembly (100 and 400), connected to and located between the at least one deflection wheel (110) and the casing of least one of two flywheel energy storage modules (210) (Fig.7); wherein a pivoting motion of a dynamic balancer (200) with respect to the carrier drives the two flywheel energy storage modules (210) to pivot with respect to the dynamic balancer (200), such that one of the two flywheel energy storage modules (210) changes a travelling direction of the at least one deflection wheel (110) through the at least one deflection assembly (400) (Figs.3 and 7) (Par.74-76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Youn in the combination of Ellis in view of Palti to have had a simple configuration that prevents the carrier from being overturned when rotated to make a turn (Par.79).
Claims 4 and 13: Ellis in view of Palti, Jensen and Youn teach the limitations of claims 3 and 12 as disclosed above. The combination of Ellis in view of Palti does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one deflection assembly comprises a first deflection member and a second deflection member, the first deflection member is connected to the casing of one of the two flywheel energy storage modules and is rotatably connected to the dynamic balancer, the second deflection member is rotatably disposed on the carrier, the at least one deflection wheel is rotatably disposed on the second deflection member, and a rotation motion of the first deflection member with respect to the dynamic balancer selectively abuts on the second deflection member so as to change the travelling direction of the at least one deflection wheel through a rotation motion of the second deflection member.
Youn teaches the at least one deflection assembly (100 and 400) comprises a first deflection member (400) and a second deflection member (100/MCU), the first deflection member (400) is connected to the casing of one of the two flywheel energy storage modules (210) and is rotatably connected to the dynamic balancer (200) (Fig.7), the second deflection member (100/MCU) is rotatably disposed on the carrier, the at least one deflection wheel (110) is rotatably disposed on the second deflection member (100/MCU), and a rotation motion of the first deflection member (400) with respect to the dynamic balancer (200) selectively abuts on the second deflection member (100/MCU) so as to change the travelling direction of the at least one deflection wheel (110) through a rotation motion of the second deflection member (100/MCU) (Figs.4-5) (Par.73-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Youn in the combination of Ellis in view of Palti to have had the expected result of assisting in turning the carrier left or right (Par.63) by controlling the dynamic balancer and rotation of the flywheels (Par.53-55 and 74).
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 2021/0170897) in view of Palti (US 2010/0282528), Jensen (US 5,460,239) and Youn (US 2019/0389518) as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Meng et al. (US 2021/0331666).
Claims 5-6 and 14-15: Ellis in view of Palti, Jensen and Youn teach the limitations of claims 3 and 12 as disclosed above. Ellis teaches wherein each of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (100/MCU) further comprises a processing module (master control) (Par.25), each of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (100/MCU) is in communication connection with the controller through the processing module, the processing module transmits a current location of the carrier (110) to the controller every specific time period (Par.22 and 48-50).
The combination of Ellis in view of Palti does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of movable energy storage devices further comprises a handle coupled to the dynamic balancer so as to drive the pivoting motion of the dynamic balancer with respect to the carrier; and the handle is moved to drive the pivoting motion of the dynamic balancer with respect to the carrier after the processing module receives the deflection instruction.
Youn teaches wherein the movable energy storage device (Fig.1) comprises a handle (300) coupled to the dynamic balancer (200) so as to drive the pivoting motion of the dynamic balancer (200) with respect to the carrier (body) (Par.39); wherein the movable energy storage device further comprises a processing module (controller) and the handle (300) is moved to drive the pivoting motion of the dynamic balancer (200) with respect to the carrier (body) after the processing module receives a deflection instruction (Par.55; Deflection instruction from a driver rotating the handle.) (Par.59-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Youn in the combination of Ellis in view of Palti to have had a steering device to accurately control a desired moving direction of the movable energy storage device (Par.39).
The combination of Ellis in view of Palti and Youn does not explicitly teach the processing module transmits a current speed to the controller, the controller selectively transmits a deflection instruction to the processing module based on the current location and the current speed.
Meng teaches a plurality of movable energy storage devices (Fig.5) comprising a processing module (control device) transmitting a current speed to a controller (Par.16-17 and 25), the controller selectively transmits a deflection instruction to the processing module (control device) based on the current location and the current speed (Par.23 and 27-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Youn in the combination of Ellis in view of Palti and Youn to have had navigated the movable energy storage device along an optimal path (Par.23) by controlling movement with speed and direction signals (Par.25) thereby safely autonomously driving the devices.
Claims 8-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 2021/0170897) in view of Palti (US 2010/0282528) and Jensen (US 5,460,239) as applied to claims 1, 7 and 16 above, and further in view of Braunstein (US 2023/0168684).
Claim 8: Ellis in view of Palti and Jensen teach the limitations of claim 7 as disclosed above. Ellis does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one of the plurality of movable energy storage devices compares a current capacity of the at least one energy storage set with the charging requirement of the dispatch instruct, and the at least one of the plurality of movable energy storage devices moves to the electric vehicle or send a charging request to the controller based on a comparison result.
Braunstein teaches at least one of a plurality of movable energy storage devices (104) (Fig.1) compares a current capacity of at least one energy storage set (112) with a charging requirement of a dispatch instruct, and the at least one of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (104) moves to an electric vehicle (102) (Par.88).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Braunstein in the system of Ellis to have had considered energy consumption/levels of the movable energy storage device prior to dispatching it for discharge (Par.88) thereby preventing a movable energy storage device from becoming fully discharged (Par.115).
Claim 9: Ellis in view of Palti and Jensen teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Ellis teaches wherein each of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (100/MCU) further comprises an inverter (Par.25); wherein the at least one energy storage set (105) of the at least one of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (100) obtains electricity from the charging station (Par.23 and 28); the at least one energy storage set (105) of the at least one of the plurality of movable energy storage devices (100/MCU) provides electricity for the electric vehicle through the inverter (Par.24-25).
Ellis does not explicitly teach further comprising an energy storage type charging pile.
Braunstein teaches an energy storage type charging pile (210) (Par.78) (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Braunstein in the system of Ellis to have had a location where the movable energy storage devices and the electric vehicles can recharge their respective batteries (Par.78).
Claim 17: Ellis in view of Palti and Jensen teach the limitations of claim 16 as disclosed above. Ellis does not explicitly teach wherein after sending the dispatch instruct to the at least one movable energy storage device by the controller, further comprising:
comparing the charging requirement of the dispatch instruct with a current capacity of at least one energy storage set of the at least one movable energy storage device by the at least one movable energy storage device; and moving the at least one movable energy storage device to the electric vehicle or sending another charging request to the controller by the at least one movable energy storage device based on a comparison result.
Braunstein teaches after sending a dispatch instruct to at least one movable energy storage device (104) by a controller (118), further comprising: comparing a charging requirement with a current capacity of at least one energy storage set (112) of the at least one movable energy storage device (104) by the at least one movable energy storage device (104) (Par.43, 115 and 119); and moving the at least one movable energy storage device (104) to the electric vehicle (102) (Par.116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Braunstein in the system of Ellis to have had considered energy consumption/levels of the movable energy storage device prior to dispatching it for discharge (Par.88) thereby preventing a movable energy storage device from becoming fully discharged (Par.115).
Claim 18: Ellis in view of Palti, Jensen and Braunstein teach the limitations of claim 17 as disclosed above. Ellis teaches wherein after moving the at least one movable energy storage device (100/MCU) to the electric vehicle, further comprising: moving the at least one movable energy storage device (100/MCU) to a charging station of the operation center to obtain electricity after the electric vehicle is charged (Par.50-51 and 63).
Claim 19: Ellis in view of Palti, Jensen and Braunstein teach the limitations of claim 17 as disclosed above. Ellis does not explicitly teach wherein after sending the another charging request to the controller by the at least one movable energy storage device based on the comparison result, further comprising: instructing the at least one movable energy storage device to move to a charging station of the operation center so as to obtain electricity by the controller; and sending the dispatch instruct to another movable energy storage device by the controller.
Braunstein teaches after sending another charging request to the controller (118) by the at least one movable energy storage device (104) based on the comparison result, further comprising: instructing the at least one movable energy storage device (104) to move to a charging station (210) so as to obtain electricity by the controller (118) (Par.81 and 89); and sending the dispatch instruct to another movable energy storage device (104) by the controller (118) (Par.117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Braunstein in the system of Ellis to have had charged a depleted movable energy storage device (Par.79); and have had identified a different movable energy storage device to fulfill a charging request when the first movable energy storage device selected cannot complete the request without becoming fully discharged (Par.116-117).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Gutsche (US 2008/0223636) discloses flywheels rotating at opposite directions while having the same absolute value of angular velocity and the same absolute value of angular acceleration (Par.24).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859