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 Preliminary Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of preliminary amendment to application 18/090,695 received June 5, 2023. Claims 3 and 14 are canceled and claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 are amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because box 306 of Fig. 3 has a misspelled word; “Retruning” should be “Returning”. 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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 5-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran et al. U.S. PGPub 2009/0021871 A1 (hereinafter Moran) in view of Menzel et al. U.S. PGPub 2025/0147125 A1 (hereinafter Menzel).
Regarding Claim 1, Moran teaches a system for overvoltage protection of a supercapacitor system for an electric vehicle (Moran, Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0029] – [0033]), the system comprising a plurality of supercapacitor groups (Moran, Fig. 4, Element 424; Para. [0049], “grouped in strings”), each supercapacitor group comprising two or more supercapacitors of a plurality of supercapacitors (Moran, Fig. 2, Elements 222, Fig. 3, Elements 322 and Fig. 4, Elements 422; Paras. [0031] [0033], “ultracapacitors”), a plurality of overvoltage protector units (Moran, Fig. 4, Elements 440; Para. [0049]), each of the plurality of overvoltage protector units being operable to detect a voltage of each of the two or more supercapacitors within a respective one of the plurality of supercapacitor groups (Moran, Fig. 4; Paras. [0049] – [0050]), and a controller comprising a processor with access to a memory (Moran, Fig. 4, Element 434; Paras. [0048] – [0051]. Where memory is not explicitly mentioned, but understood and well known in the art.), but does not teach the controller operable to determine which of the plurality of supercapacitor groups to connect to the electric vehicle.
Menzel, however, teaches wherein the controller (Menzel, Fig. 2A, Element 230; Para. [0064]) is operable to determine which of the plurality of supercapacitor groups (Menzel, Fig. 2A-2B, Element 210; Para. [0064]) to connect to the electric vehicle based on data from at least one of the plurality of overvoltage protector units and based on a predetermined percentage of difference of at least one supercapacitor in one of the plurality of supercapacitor groups from an average value of at least a plurality of available supercapacitors of the plurality of supercapacitor groups (Menzel, Paras. [0004], [0024] - [0025]. Where the stress condition is a result of over-voltage as taught in paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Moran is silent as to what if any switching is performed for capacitor strings that fall outside of the accepted threshold, Moran would inherently incorporate some type of conventional selection management of the capacitors which fall outside of safe levels commonly understood in the art. The capacitor selection management taught by Menzel, for determining out of range capacitor banks, teaches one of the many conventional capacitor systems protection methods utilized in the art for disconnecting capacitor(s) that fall outside a predetermined safe level. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Menzel, to control the capacitor system within the energy storage pack of Moran.
Regarding Claim 5, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Moran teaches further comprising an overvoltage protection circuit, that is electrically coupled between the plurality of supercapacitors and the electric vehicle (Moran, Fig. 3, Element 370; Paras. [0040] – [0041], “on/off circuitry”).
Regarding Claim 6, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 5/1. Furthermore, Moran teaches wherein the overvoltage protection circuit prevents one or more of the plurality of supercapacitor groups from being coupled to the electric vehicle (Moran, Fig. 3, Element 370; Paras. [0040] – [0041], “on/off circuitry”).
Regarding Claim 7, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Moran teaches further comprising a display screen that is operable to receive data from the processor in response to an error code being generated by the processor in response to one of the plurality of supercapacitor groups being in need of charging (Moran, Fig. 8, Step 530; Paras. [0017], [0046] – [0049], and [0066]).
Regarding Claim 8, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 7/1. Furthermore, Moran teaches wherein the display screen is further operable to display a second error code that indicates an overvoltage protection (OVP) error (Moran, Fig. 8, Step 530; Para. [0067], and Claim 22).
Regarding Claim 9, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Moran teaches wherein the controller is operable to continuously monitor the plurality of supercapacitor groups and determine that one or more of the plurality of supercapacitor groups is outside of a predetermined range, and swap out the one or more of the plurality of supercapacitor groups that are outside of the predetermined range with a supercapacitor group that is not currently connected but that is within the predetermined range (Moran, Paras. [0040] – [0041], “persistent”).
Regarding Claim 10, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 9/1. Furthermore, Moran teaches wherein the predetermined range is associated with one or more of a voltage, a current, or a charge capacity (Moran, Para. [0016], “voltage”).
Regarding Claim 11, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 10/9/1. Furthermore, Moran teaches wherein the controller is operable to determine a number of the plurality of supercapacitor groups to connect based on a total current draw that is needed in combination with a desired voltage (Moran, Para. [0008]).
Regarding Claim 12, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 10/9/1. Furthermore, Moran teaches wherein the controller is operable to identify that an overvoltage protection unit of the plurality of overvoltage protector units is not operational and to disconnect a corresponding supercapacitor group in response to identifying that the overvoltage protection unit is not operational (Moran, Fig. 4, Element 470; Paras. [0040] – [0041], “on/off circuitry”).
Regarding Claim 13, Moran teaches a method for overvoltage protection of a supercapacitor system for an electric vehicle (Moran, Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0029] – [0033]), the method comprising measuring, using an overvoltage protector unit, a respective voltage of each of a plurality of supercapacitor groups (Moran, Fig. 4; Paras. [0049] – [0050]), each supercapacitor group comprising a plurality of supercapacitors (Moran, Fig. 2, Elements 222, Fig. 3, Elements 322 and Fig. 4, Elements 422; Paras. [0031] [0033], “ultracapacitors”), and determining, by a processor (Moran, Fig. 4, Element 434; Paras. [0048] – [0051]), but does not teach the controller operable to determine which of the plurality of supercapacitor groups to connect to the electric vehicle.
Menzel, however, teaches, determining, by a processor (Menzel, Fig. 2A, Element 230; Para. [0064]) which of the plurality of supercapacitor groups (Menzel, Fig. 2A-2B, Element 210; Para. [0064]) to connect to the electric vehicle based on the respective voltage of each of the plurality of supercapacitor groups and based on a predetermined percentage of difference of at least one supercapacitor in one of the plurality of supercapacitor groups from an average value of at least a plurality of available supercapacitors of the plurality of supercapacitor groups (Menzel, Paras. [0004], [0024] - [0025]. Where the stress condition is a result of over-voltage as taught in paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Moran is silent as to what if any switching is performed for capacitor strings that fall outside of the accepted threshold, Moran would inherently incorporate some type of conventional selection management of the capacitors which fall outside of safe levels commonly understood in the art. The capacitor selection management taught by Menzel, for determining out of range capacitor banks, teaches one of the many conventional capacitor systems protection methods utilized in the art for disconnecting capacitor(s) that fall outside a predetermined safe level. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Menzel, to control the capacitor system within the energy storage pack of Moran.
Regarding Claim 16, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 13. Furthermore, Moran teaches further comprising preventing, by an overvoltage protection circuit, one or more of the plurality of supercapacitor groups from being coupled to the electric vehicle (Moran, Fig. 3, Element 370; Paras. [0040] – [0041], “on/off circuitry”).
Regarding Claim 17, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 13. Furthermore, Moran teaches further comprising, continuously monitoring the plurality of supercapacitor groups and determining when one or more of the plurality of supercapacitor groups is outside of a predetermined range, and swapping out the one or more of the plurality of supercapacitor groups that are outside of the predetermined range with a supercapacitor group that is not currently connected but that is within the predetermined range (Moran, Paras. [0040] – [0041], “persistent”).
Regarding Claim 18, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 17/13. Furthermore, Moran teaches wherein the predetermined range is associated with one or more of a voltage, a current, or a charge capacity (Moran, Para. [0016], “voltage”).
Regarding Claim 19, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 18/17/13. Furthermore, Moran teaches further comprising determining by the processor, a number of the plurality of supercapacitor groups to connect based on a total current draw that is needed in combination with a desired voltage (Moran, Para. [0008]).
Regarding Claim 20, Moran teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, wherein the program is executable by a processor (Moran, Para. [0051]) to perform a method of overvoltage protection of a supercapacitor system for an electric vehicle (Moran, Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0029] – [0033]), the method comprising measuring, using an overvoltage protector unit, a respective voltage of each of a plurality of supercapacitor groups (Moran, Fig. 4; Paras. [0049] – [0050]), each supercapacitor group comprising a plurality of supercapacitors (Moran, Fig. 2, Elements 222, Fig. 3, Elements 322 and Fig. 4, Elements 422; Paras. [0031] [0033], “ultracapacitors”), and determining (Moran, Fig. 4, Element 434; Paras. [0048] – [0051]), but does not teach the controller operable to determine which of the plurality of supercapacitor groups to connect to the electric vehicle.
Menzel, however, teaches, determining (Menzel, Fig. 2A, Element 230; Para. [0064]) which of the plurality of supercapacitor groups (Menzel, Fig. 2A-2B, Element 210; Para. [0064]) to connect to the electric vehicle based on the respective voltage of each of the plurality of supercapacitor groups based on a predetermined percentage of difference of at least one supercapacitor in one of the plurality of supercapacitor groups from an average value of at least a plurality of available supercapacitors of the plurality of supercapacitor groups (Menzel, Paras. [0004], [0024] - [0025]. Where the stress condition is a result of over-voltage as taught in paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Moran is silent as to what if any switching is performed for capacitor strings that fall outside of the accepted threshold, Moran would inherently incorporate some type of conventional selection management of the capacitors which fall outside of safe levels commonly understood in the art. The capacitor selection management taught by Menzel, for determining out of range capacitor banks, teaches one of the many conventional capacitor systems protection methods utilized in the art for disconnecting capacitor(s) that fall outside a predetermined safe level. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Menzel, to control the capacitor system within the energy storage pack of Moran.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran et al. U.S. PGPub 2009/0021871 A1 (hereinafter Moran) in view of Menzel et al. U.S. PGPub 2025/0147125 A1 (hereinafter Menzel) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pascoe et al. U.S. PGPub 2004/0036475 A1 (hereinafter Pascoe).
Regarding Claim 2, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, but does not teach a predetermined percentage of difference.
Pascoe, however, teaches wherein the predetermined percentage of difference is from an average value of all of the plurality of supercapacitors (Pascoe, Paras. [0045] and [0079]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Moran is silent as to what if any switching is performed for capacitor strings that fall outside of the accepted threshold, Moran would inherently incorporate some type of conventional determination of out of range performance of the capacitor(s) commonly understood in the art. The capacitor selection management taught by Pascoe, for determining out of range capacitor banks, teaches one of the many conventional capacitor systems protection methods utilized in the art for disconnecting capacitor(s) that fall outside a predetermined safe level. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Pascoe, to control the capacitor system within the energy storage pack of Moran.
Regarding Claim 4, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, but does not teach the degree to which the capacitor value has to be out of range to make a determination of overvoltage.
Pascoe, however, teaches wherein the predetermined percentage of difference is greater than 20% (Pascoe, Paras. [0045] and [0079]).
Moran as modified by Menzel discloses the claimed invention except for stating an amount of difference as a percentage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set a percentage based on experimentation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Moran is silent as to what a range would provide for the protection of the capacitor based on the voltage measured when above a predetermined level, Moran would inherently incorporate some type of conventional determination of out of range performance of the capacitor(s) commonly understood in the art. The capacitor selection management taught by Pascoe, for determining out of range capacitor banks, teaches one of the many conventional capacitor systems protection methods utilized in the art for disconnecting capacitor(s) that fall outside a predetermined safe level. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Pascoe, to control the capacitor system within the energy storage pack of Moran.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran et al. U.S. PGPub 2009/0021871 A1 (hereinafter Moran) in view of Menzel et al. U.S. PGPub 2025/0147125 A1 (hereinafter Menzel) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Pascoe et al. U.S. PGPub 2004/0036475 A1 (hereinafter Pascoe).
Regarding Claim 15, The combined teaching of the Moran and Menzel references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, but does not teach the degree to which the capacitor value has to be out of range to make a determination of overvoltage.
Pascoe, however, teaches wherein the predetermined percentage of difference is greater than 20% (Pascoe, Paras. [0045] and [0079]).
Moran as modified by Menzel discloses the claimed invention except for stating an amount of difference as a percentage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set a percentage based on experimentation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Moran is silent as to what a range would provide for the protection of the capacitor based on the voltage measured when above a predetermined level, Moran would inherently incorporate some type of conventional determination of out of range performance of the capacitor(s) commonly understood in the art. The capacitor selection management taught by Pascoe, for determining out of range capacitor banks, teaches one of the many conventional capacitor systems protection methods utilized in the art for disconnecting capacitor(s) that fall outside a predetermined safe level. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Pascoe, to control the capacitor system within the energy storage pack of Moran.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brien et al. U.S. Patent 6,265,851 AND KR-2002/0047048 teaches an ultracapacitor power system for EV with individual over-voltage detection circuitry.
Trivedi et al. U.S. PGPub 2021/0380000 teaches a supercapacitor arrangement for EVs.
Wang U.S. PGPub 2019/0351852 teaches capacitor pack with a plurality of over-voltage protection circuits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
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.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859