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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 12/23/2022 claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2023, 08/03/2023, 10/24/2023, and 05/09/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the external charging source and the a battery management system of the external charging source must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the missing reference numbers due to the drawing objection (above) would require an amendment to the specification to include these reference numbers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent by Jeong et al. (KR-20120131727-A) and further in view of Engström et al. (USPGPN 20220044880).
First, the examiner notes that a supercapacitor adder module is the device which includes the supercapacitor batteries 112 and other associated auxiliary components as illustrated by the applicant in Fig. 1 of the drawings. For examination purposes a supercapacitor adder module will be interpreted as a module or housing which contains a supercapacitor and may contain other auxiliary components associated with the supercapacitor.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 11, Jeong teaches a system and method for powering an electric vehicle, the system comprising: at least one electrochemical battery (Figs. 1-5; a system and method for powering an electric vehicle comprising a battery 50/150/250).
Jeong teaches a supercapacitor adder module including at least one supercapacitor battery (Figs. 1-5; supercapacitor 30/130/230 has its own module/housing).
Jeong teaches a controller (Figs. 1-5; controller 40/140/240).
Jeong teaches an external charging source (¶ [38]; although not illustrated in the drawings an external power supply may charge the battery or the supercapacitor).
Jeong teaches to disconnect the at least one electrochemical battery from the electric vehicle (Fig. 2; battery 150 is disconnected from the motor-generator 110 which drive the electric vehicle).
Jeong teaches charge the at least one supercapacitor battery from the charging source via the supercapacitor adder module (Fig. 2; supercapacitor 30 is charged from generator 170 via the housing of the supercapacitor 130).
Jeong teaches charge the at least one electrochemical battery from the charging source via the supercapacitor adder module (Fig. 2; battery 150 is charged from the generator 170 via the supercapacitor 130).
Jeong teaches reconnect the at least one electrochemical battery to the electric vehicle (Figs. 3-5; the battery 50/150/250 is reconnected to the electric vehicle via the power controller 40/140/240).
Jeong teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine, based on a usage pattern of the at least one electrochemical battery, whether to switch from the at least one electrochemical battery to the at least one supercapacitor battery for powering the electric vehicle (¶ [54-59]; the power controller checks the SOC of the battery to determine if to power the electric vehicle using the supercapacitor or the battery. One of ordinary skill understands that monitoring the SOC is a type of usage pattern of the battery).
Jeong teaches in response to a determination to switch from the at least one electrochemical battery to the at least one supercapacitor battery: disconnect the at least one electrochemical battery from the electric vehicle and connect the at least one supercapacitor battery to power to the electric vehicle (Based on the SOC determination to switch between the supercapacitor 130 or the battery 150, Fig. 2 illustrates wherein the battery 150 is disconnected from the motor-generator 110 (which drives the electric vehicle) and the supercapacitor 130 is connected to the motor-generator 110 to supply power to it).
Jeong fails to explicitly teach in response to detecting that an external charging source is connected to the supercapacitor adder module.
In the alternative, in order to expedite prosecution to cure for Jeong’s lack of explicitly disclosing that the supercapacitor 30/130/230 is a supercapacitor adder module which includes a supercapacitor and associated components, Engström teaches a supercapacitor adder module (Fig. 2; a supercapacitor module 1 comprising a supercapacitor 3, high power control electronics 4, control unit 11, and a voltage comparison unit 7).
Engström teaches in response to detecting that a charging source is connected to the supercapacitor adder module (Fig. 1; the method executes in response to the system detecting that a power source 8 is connected to the supercapacitor module 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Engström’s supercapacitor module and method of initiating steps based on determining if the supercapacitor module has been connected with a charging source to Jeong’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 15, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 11, respectively. Further, Jeong teaches connecting the external charging source to the at least one electrochemical battery through the supercapacitor adder module (Fig. 2; the battery 150 is connected to the supercapacitor 130 which is connected to the external power supply (not illustrated see ¶ [38])).
Jeong teaches the external charging source to charge the at least one electrochemical battery (¶ [38]; the external power supply charges the battery).
However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach through a connection within the supercapacitor adder module; and a battery management system of the external charging source.
Engström teaches through a connection within the supercapacitor adder module (Fig. 2; power source 2 is connected to the power source 8 via high-power control electronics 4 within the supercapacitor module 1).
Engström teaches a battery management system of the charging source (Fig. 2; ECU 9 of power source 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Engström’s supercapacitor module’s connection between sources and the ECU of one of the sources to Jeong’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 16, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 11, respectively. Further, Jeong teaches wherein charging the at least one supercapacitor battery takes place before charging the at least one electrochemical battery (Fig. 2; supercapacitor 130 is charged first before charging the battery 150).
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 19, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 11, respectively. Further, Jeong teaches determining, based on a usage pattern of the at least one supercapacitor battery, whether to switch from the at least one supercapacitor battery to the at least one electrochemical battery for powering the electric vehicle (¶ [54-59]; the power controller checks the SOC of the battery to determine if to power the electric vehicle using the supercapacitor or the battery. One of ordinary skill understands that monitoring the SOC is a type of usage pattern of the battery).
Jeong teaches in response to a determination to switch from the at least one supercapacitor battery to the at least one electrochemical battery: disconnecting the at least one supercapacitor battery from the electric vehicle and connecting the at least one electrochemical battery to power the electric vehicle (Based on the SOC determination to switch between the supercapacitor 130 or the battery 150, Fig. 1 illustrates wherein the supercapacitor 30 is disconnected from the motor-generator 110 (which drives the electric vehicle) and the battery 50 is connected to the motor-generator 110 to supply power to it).
Claims 2, 7-8, 10, 12, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent by Jeong et al. (KR-20120131727-A), in view of Engström et al. (USPGPN 20220044880), and further in view of Suomela (USPGPN 20140117921).
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 12, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 11, respectively. However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach reading a database to determine a maximum capacity of the at least one supercapacitor battery; connecting the external charging source to the at least one supercapacitor battery through a connection within the supercapacitor adder module; and charging the at least one supercapacitor battery to at least a threshold percentage of the maximum capacity.
Engström teaches connecting the charging source to the at least one supercapacitor battery through a connection within the supercapacitor adder module (Fig. 2; source 8 is connected to the supercapacitor 3 via high-power control electronics 4 within the supercapacitor module 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to connect the external source of Jeong through a connection within the supercapacitor module as taught by Engström, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach reading a database to determine a maximum capacity of the at least one supercapacitor battery; and charging the at least one supercapacitor battery to at least a threshold percentage of the maximum capacity.
Suomela teaches reading a database to determine a maximum capacity of the at least one battery and charging the at least one battery to at least a threshold percentage of the maximum capacity (Fig. 2; ¶ [48, 56-60]; a maximum capacity and the recharging threshold of the battery is obtained from a database 24 in which is used to determine the amount of charging required for the battery. One of ordinary skill understands the threshold is a percentage of the maximum capacity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Suomela’s method of determining maximum capacity and charging thresholds to Jeong’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 17, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 11, respectively. However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach measuring, by at least one current tester, current flow between the at least one electrochemical battery and the electric vehicle; storing indications of the current flow in a database; and using the indications of the current flow in the database to determine the usage pattern.
Suomela teaches measuring, by at least one current tester, current flow between the at least one electrochemical battery and the electric device (Fig. 2; current “I” measurement 170 measures current flow between the battery 160 and the device).
Suomela teaches storing indications of the current flow in a database (¶ [257]; the measured current is stored in RAM 126. One of ordinary skill understands a database is stored in RAM therefore the measured current is stored in the database).
Suomela teaches using the indications of the current flow in the database to determine the usage pattern (¶ [257]; charge increments Qi are computed from the measured current. One of ordinary skill understands that charge increments determine how much charge flowed in or out of the battery (i.e., a usage pattern)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Suomela’s method of measuring the current to determine a usage pattern with Jeong’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 18, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 7 and 17, respectively. Jeong discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the usage pattern includes the current flow either meeting or exceeding a threshold value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determining that the usage pattern includes the current flow meeting or exceeding a threshold value, 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).
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 20, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 9 and 19, respectively. However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach measuring, by at least one current tester, current flow between the at least one supercapacitor battery and the electric vehicle; storing indications of the current flow in a database; and using the indications of the current flow in the database to determine the usage pattern.
Suomela teaches measuring, by at least one current tester, current flow between the at least one battery and the electric vehicle (Fig. 2; current “I” measurement 170 measures current flow between the battery 160 and the device).
Suomela teaches storing indications of the current flow in a database (¶ [257]; the measured current is stored in RAM 126. One of ordinary skill understands a database is stored in RAM therefore the measured current is stored in the database).
Suomela teaches using the indications of the current flow in the database to determine the usage pattern (¶ [257]; charge increments Qi are computed from the measured current. One of ordinary skill understands that charge increments determine how much charge flowed in or out of the battery (i.e., a usage pattern)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Suomela’s method of measuring the current to determine a usage pattern with Jeong’s supercapacitor apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent by Jeong et al. (KR-20120131727-A), in view of Engström et al. (USPGPN 20220044880), and further in view of Funk (USPGPN 20210376630).
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 13, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 11, respectively. However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach sending an alert to a user that the at least one supercapacitor battery is being charged.
Funk teaches teach sending an alert to a user that the at least one battery is being charged (¶ [71]; the user receives an alert notifying them that the battery is being charged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Funk’s user notification of the batteries charging state to Jeong’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 14, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 11, respectively. However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach sending an alert to a user that charging of the at least one supercapacitor battery is complete.
Funk teaches sending an alert to a user that charging of the at least one supercapacitor battery is complete (¶ [69]; the user is notified when the battery has completed charging).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Funk’s user notification of the batteries charging state to Jeong’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aronov et al. (USPGPN 20170373513) combines a supercapacitor with a regular battery, detects when a charger is plugged in, and manages which one charges or powers the device to make charging faster. However, Aronov focuses on deciding when to charge or discharge the supercapacitor and battery based on charge levels and time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859