DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits, in response to the claims received 12/28/2022. Claims 1-7 are pending for prosecution below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)(s) file on has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi, (USNO.2009/0266631) in combination with FUJIE et al, (FUJIE), (USNO.2017/0019051)
As for claim 1, Kikuchi discloses and shows in Fig. 3 a power storage system comprising: a battery; a voltmeter configured to measure voltage of the battery, an ammeter configured to measure current of the battery; and processing circuitry (via ref’s ECU), wherein the processing circuitry functionally includes: a first calculation unit configured to calculate estimated internal resistance, which is an estimated value of present internal resistance of the battery, based on the voltage and the current; a second calculation unit configured to calculate charging power upper limit, which is an upper limit on charging power for the battery, based on the estimated internal resistance calculated by the first calculation limit, the present voltage, and the present current; a charge control unit configured to control charge of the battery to prevent charging power exceeding the charging power upper limit from being supplied to the battery (par.[0011-0016,0056-0062,0071]).
Kikuchi discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a limitation unit configured to determine, based on the current, whether power fluctuation in which output power of the battery fluctuates ereatly within a short period of time has occurred or not and to prohibit the second calculation unit from operating during the power fluctuation
FUJIE discloses a limitation unit configured to determine, based on the current, whether power fluctuation in which output power of the battery fluctuates ereatly within a short period of time has occurred or not and to prohibit the second calculation unit from operating during the power fluctuation (par.[0050,0057])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Kikuchi by using limitation unit configured to determine, based on the current, whether power fluctuation in which output power of the battery fluctuates ereatly within a short period of time has occurred or not and to prohibit the second calculation unit from operating during the power fluctuation for advantages such as providing failure detection (par.[0050]) as taught by FUJIE.
As for claim 2, Kikuchi in combination with FUJIE discloses limitation unit is configured to determine that the power fluctuation has occurred when a fluctuation in the current over a past predetermined period exceeds a first threshold (par.[0033-0039])
As for claim 7, Kikuchi discloses and shows in Fig. 3 a power storage system comprising: a battery: a voltmeter configured to measure voltage of the battery; an ammeter configured to measure current of the battery; and processing circuitry (via ref’s ECU), wherein the processing circuitry functionally includes: a first calculation unit configured to calculate estimated mteral resistance, which is an estimated value of present internal resistance of the battery, based on the voltage and the current; a second calculation umt configured to calculate discharging power upper limit, which is an upper lurut on discharging power for the battery, based on the estimated internal resistance calculated by the first calculation unit, the present voltage, and the present current; a discharge control unit configured to control discharge of the battery to prevent discharging power exceeding the discharging power upper limit from being discharged from the battery (par.[0011-0016,0056-0062,0071]).
Kikuchi discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a limitation unit configured to determine, based on the current, whether power fluctuation in which output power of the battery fluctuates greatly within a short period of time has occurred or not and to prohibit the second calculation unit from operating during the power fluctuation
FUJIE discloses a limitation unit configured to determine, based on the current, whether power fluctuation in which output power of the battery fluctuates greatly within a short period of time has occurred or not and to prohibit the second calculation unit from operating during the power fluctuation (par.[0050,0057])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Kikuchi by using a limitation unit configured to determine, based on the current, whether power fluctuation in which output power of the battery fluctuates greatly within a short period of time has occurred or not and to prohibit the second calculation unit from operating during the power fluctuation for advantages such as providing failure detection (par.[0050]) as taught by FUJIE.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3: the limitation unit is configured to calculate instantaneous resistance, which is estimated internal resistance of the battery ma past predetermined period, based on a fluctuation in the current over the period and a fluctuation in the voltage over the period, and the limitation unit is configured to determine that the power fluctuation has occurred when a ratio of the instantaneous resistance to the estimated internal resistance is below a second threshold, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims
Claim 4: the charge control unit is configured to control charge of the battery based on: when operation of the second calculation unit is not prohibited by the 5 limitation unit, the charging power upper limit calculated by the second calculation unit based on the estumated internal resistance, the present voltage, and the present current, and when the operation of the second calculation unt is prohibited by the limitation unit, the charging power upper limit calculated immediately before the operation of the second calculation unit is prohibited , in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859