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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 12th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 12th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejections over Chalasani et al. in view of Kaewert et al. are maintained.
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, 4-5, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalasani et al. (US 2005/0077871 A1) in view of Kaewert et al. (US 2024/0006901 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Chalasani et al. discloses a removable battery module for a rack system (Figure 2, #21), the rack system including at least one rack controller (Figure 1, #12), the removable battery module comprising:
at least one battery (Figure 1, #40-#46 & Paragraph 0014);
a communication interface configured to communicatively couple with the at least one rack controller (Figure 1, #25 & Paragraph 0014); and
a module controller (Figure 1, #24 & Paragraph 0014) configured to generate a current measurement (Paragraph 0016, 0018-0019) and report via the communication interface the current measurement for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller (Paragraph 0017 – provides information to the system control apparatus).
Chalasani et al. does not explicitly teach that the module controller is configured to estimate a state of charge of the at least one battery at startup; determine whether at least one trigger has occurred; wherein the at least one trigger comprises at least one of the estimated SOC of the at least one battery is greater than a threshold SOC and the at least one battery is in a float state; start a float timer in response to determining that the at least one trigger has occurred; generate a current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current; and report, via the communication interface, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller.
Kaewert et al. teaches a module controller configured to estimate a state of charge of the at least one battery at startup (Figs. 9-10, #130 & Paragraph 0116); determine whether at least one trigger has occurred (Figs. 9-10, Float Mode, Eco Mode, Refresh Mode, Boost Mode); start a float timer in response to determining that the at least one trigger has occurred (Paragraph 0118 – if the timing component increments beyond a pre-programmed time limit); generate a current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current (Paragraph 0040 – each tailored to achieve a desired charge status of the battery). Kaewert et al. teaches that one trigger is an estimated SOC greater than a threshold SOC (Paragraph 0041 – achieve a desired charge status); and at least one battery is in a float charge (Figs. 9-10, Float Mode).
Kaewert et al. teaches that this configuration advantageously minimizes variations in temperature, voltage, and state of charge between batteries so that all batteries in the system remain near the same state of health throughout the battery system's life (Paragraph 0014). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have Chalasani et al. module controller configured to estimate a state of charge of the at least one battery at startup; determine whether at least one trigger has occurred; start a float timer in response to determining that the at least one trigger has occurred; generate a current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current; and report, via the communication interface, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller for the advantages of minimizing variations in temperature, voltage, and state of charge between batteries so that all batteries in the system remain near the same state of health throughout the battery system's life.
In view of Claim 4, Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kaewert et al. teaches that the module controller is further configured to determine whether the at least one battery is discharging (Paragraph 0010-0011) measure in response to determine the at least one battery is discharging a discharging current (Paragraph 0016) and decrease, based on the discharge current, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery while the at least one battery is discharging (Paragraph 0025-0026, 0028, 0040).
In view of Claim 5, Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kaewert et al. teaches that the module controller is further configured to determine whether the at least one battery is charging (Paragraph 0016) measure in response to determine the at least one battery is charging a charge current (Paragraph 0016) and increase, based on the charge current, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery while the at least one battery is charging (Paragraph 0025-0026, 0028, 0040).
In view of Claim 8, Chalasani et al. discloses a method operable by a removable battery module for a rack system (Figure 2, #21), the rack system including at least one rack controller (Figure 1, #12), the removable battery module comprising:
at least one battery (Figure 1, #40-#46 & Paragraph 0014);
a communication interface configured to communicatively couple with the at least one rack controller (Figure 1, #25 & Paragraph 0014); and
a module controller (Figure 1, #24 & Paragraph 0014) configured to generate a current measurement (Paragraph 0016, 0018-0019) and report via the communication interface the current measurement for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller (Paragraph 0017 – provides information to the system control apparatus).
Chalasani et al. does not explicitly teach that the module controller is configured to estimate a state of charge of the at least one battery at startup; determine whether at least one trigger has occurred; start a float timer in response to determining that the at least one trigger has occurred; generate a current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current; and report, via the communication interface, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller.
Kaewert et al. teaches a module controller configured to estimate a state of charge of the at least one battery at startup (Figs. 9-10, #130 & Paragraph 0116); determine whether at least one trigger has occurred (Figs. 9-10, Float Mode, Eco Mode, Refresh Mode, Boost Mode); start a float timer in response to determining that the at least one trigger has occurred (Paragraph 0118 – if the timing component increments beyond a pre-programmed time limit); generate a current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current (Paragraph 0040 – each tailored to achieve a desired charge status of the battery). Kaewert et al. teaches that one trigger is an estimated SOC greater than a threshold SOC (Paragraph 0041 – achieve a desired charge status); and at least one battery is in a float charge (Figs. 9-10, Float Mode).
Kaewert et al. teaches that this configuration advantageously minimizes variations in temperature, voltage, and state of charge between batteries so that all batteries in the system remain near the same state of health throughout the battery system's life (Paragraph 0014). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have Chalasani et al. module controller configured to estimate a state of charge of the at least one battery at startup; determine whether at least one trigger has occurred; start a float timer in response to determining that the at least one trigger has occurred; generate a current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current; and report, via the communication interface, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller for the advantages of minimizing variations in temperature, voltage, and state of charge between batteries so that all batteries in the system remain near the same state of health throughout the battery system's life.
In view of Claim 11, Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Kaewert et al. teaches that the module controller is further configured to determine whether the at least one battery is discharging (Paragraph 0010-0011) measure in response to determine the at least one battery is discharging a discharging current (Paragraph 0016) and decrease, based on the discharge current, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery while the at least one battery is discharging (Paragraph 0025-0026, 0028, 0040).
In view of Claim 12, Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Kaewert et al. teaches that the module controller is further configured to determine whether the at least one battery is charging (Paragraph 0016) measure in response to determine the at least one battery is charging a charge current (Paragraph 0016) and increase, based on the charge current, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery while the at least one battery is charging (Paragraph 0025-0026, 0028, 0040).
Claims 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rearick et al. (US 2020/0205309 A1) in view of Chalasani et al. (US 2005/0077871 A1) in view of Kaewert et al. (US 2024/0006901 A1).
In view of Claim 15, Rearick et al. teaches a rack system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a mounting frame configured to mount rack-mount equipment within an interior portion of the rack system (Figs. 9-10, central open portion may have devices mounted within edge modules);
the mounting frame extending along at least a portion of a height of the rack system (Fig. 2);
at least one rack controller disposed within a peripheral portion of the rack system, the peripheral portion disposed external to the interior portion and extending along at least a portion of the mounting frame (Figs. 9-10, either #900 or edge modules can comprise controllers – Paragraph 0037-0038 microcontrollers/controlling circuitry etc.);
at least one removable battery disposed within the peripheral portion (Figs. 1-10 – any of the portions may have a slidable removable battery – Paragraph 0033).
Rearick et al. does not disclose explicitly that each removable battery comprises the limitation required of claim 15.
Chalasani et al. discloses a removable battery module for a rack system (Figure 2, #21), the removable battery module comprising:
at least one battery (Figure 1, #40-#46 & Paragraph 0014);
a communication interface configured to communicatively couple with the at least one rack controller (Figure 1, #25 & Paragraph 0014); and
a module controller (Figure 1, #24 & Paragraph 0014) configured to generate a current measurement (Paragraph 0016, 0018-0019) and report via the communication interface the current measurement for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller (Paragraph 0017 – provides information to the system control apparatus).
Chalasani et al. discloses that this configure advantageously can optimize the performance of the battery (Paragraph 0017). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the removably battery module of Chalasani et al. as Rearick et al. removable battery such that the removable battery module comprises at least one battery, a communication interface configured to communicatively couple with the at least one rack controller and a module controller configured to generate a current measurement and report via the communication interface the current measurement for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller for the advantage of optimizing the performance of the at least one battery.
Chalasani et al. does not explicitly teach that the module controller is configured to estimate a state of charge of the at least one battery at startup; determine whether at least one trigger has occurred; start a float timer in response to determining that the at least one trigger has occurred; generate a current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current; and report, via the communication interface, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller.
Kaewert et al. teaches a module controller configured to estimate a state of charge of the at least one battery at startup (Figs. 9-10, #130 & Paragraph 0116); determine whether at least one trigger has occurred (Figs. 9-10, Float Mode, Eco Mode, Refresh Mode, Boost Mode); start a float timer in response to determining that the at least one trigger has occurred (Paragraph 0118 – if the timing component increments beyond a pre-programmed time limit); generate a current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current (Paragraph 0040 – each tailored to achieve a desired charge status of the battery). Kaewert et al. teaches that one trigger is an estimated SOC greater than a threshold SOC (Paragraph 0041 – achieve a desired charge status); and at least one battery is in a float charge (Figs. 9-10, Float Mode).
Kaewert et al. teaches that this configuration advantageously minimizes variations in temperature, voltage, and state of charge between batteries so that all batteries in the system remain near the same state of health throughout the battery system's life (Paragraph 0014). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have Chalasani et al. module controller configured to estimate a state of charge of the at least one battery at startup; determine whether at least one trigger has occurred; start a float timer in response to determining that the at least one trigger has occurred; generate a current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current; and report, via the communication interface, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller for the advantages of minimizing variations in temperature, voltage, and state of charge between batteries so that all batteries in the system remain near the same state of health throughout the battery system's life.
In view of Claim 18, Rearick et al., Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Kaewert et al. teaches that the module controller is further configured to determine whether the at least one battery is discharging (Paragraph 0010-0011) measure in response to determine the at least one battery is discharging a discharging current (Paragraph 0016) and decrease, based on the discharge current, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery while the at least one battery is discharging (Paragraph 0025-0026, 0028, 0040).
In view of Claim 19, Rearick et al., Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Kaewert et al. teaches that the module controller is further configured to determine whether the at least one battery is charging (Paragraph 0016) measure in response to determine the at least one battery is charging a charge current (Paragraph 0016) and increase, based on the charge current, the current estimate for the SOC of the at least one battery while the at least one battery is charging (Paragraph 0025-0026, 0028, 0040).
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalasani et al. (US 2005/0077871 A1) in view of Kaewert et al. (US 2024/0006901 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0069371 A1).
In view of Claim 2, Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kaewert et al. teaches why it is obvious that the module controller is further configured to determine that the float timer has expired (Paragraph 0116) and that the controller can set the current estimate for the SOC of the battery (Paragraph 0040), but does not explicitly teach that its 100%.
Lee et al. teaches that the value can be set to 100% in order to be used as a reference value that becomes comparison criterion for the DOC of the battery module estimated later (Paragraph 0066). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the value be 100% in order to be used as a reference value that becomes comparison criterion for the DOC of the battery module estimated later.
In view of Claim 3, Chalasani et al., Kaewert et al., and Lee et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Kaewert et al. teaches that the module controller is configured to perform an equalization charge on the at least one battery in response to determining that the float timer has expired (Paragraph 0016).
In view of Claim 7, Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kaewert et al. teaches why it is obvious that the module controller is further configured to determine that the float timer has expired (Paragraph 0116) and that the controller can set the current estimate for the SOC of the battery (Paragraph 0040), but does not explicitly teach that the threshold SOC is greater than 80%.
Lee et al. teaches that the value can be set to 100% in order to be used as a reference value that becomes comparison criterion for the DOC of the battery module estimated later (Paragraph 0066). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the value be 100% in order to be used as a threshold value that becomes comparison criterion for the DOC of the battery module estimated later.
In view of Claim 9, Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Kaewert et al. teaches why it is obvious that the module controller is further configured to determine that the float timer has expired (Paragraph 0116) and that the controller can set the current estimate for the SOC of the battery (Paragraph 0040), but does not explicitly teach that its 100%.
Lee et al. teaches that the value can be set to 100% in order to be used as a reference value that becomes comparison criterion for the DOC of the battery module estimated later (Paragraph 0066). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the value be 100% in order to be used as a reference value that becomes comparison criterion for the DOC of the battery module estimated later.
In view of Claim 10, Chalasani et al., Kaewert et al., and Lee et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Kaewert et al. teaches that the module controller is configured to perform an equalization charge on the at least one battery in response to determining that the float timer has expired (Paragraph 0016).
In view of Claim 14 Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Kaewert et al. teaches why it is obvious that the module controller is further configured to determine that the float timer has expired (Paragraph 0116) and that the controller can set the current estimate for the SOC of the battery (Paragraph 0040), but does not explicitly teach that its 100%.
Lee et al. teaches that the value can be set to 100% in order to be used as a reference value that becomes comparison criterion for the DOC of the battery module estimated later (Paragraph 0066). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the value be 100% in order to be used as a reference value that becomes comparison criterion for the DOC of the battery module estimated later.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rearick et al. (US 2020/0205309 A1) in view of Chalasani et al. (US 2005/0077871 A1) in view of Kaewert et al. (US 2024/0006901 A1).
In view of Claim 16, Rearick et al., Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Kaewert et al. teaches why it is obvious that the module controller is further configured to determine that the float timer has expired (Paragraph 0116) and that the controller can set the current estimate for the SOC of the battery (Paragraph 0040), but does not explicitly teach that its 100%.
Lee et al. teaches that the value can be set to 100% in order to be used as a reference value that becomes comparison criterion for the DOC of the battery module estimated later (Paragraph 0066). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the value be 100% in order to be used as a reference value that becomes comparison criterion for the DOC of the battery module estimated later.
In view of Claim 17, Rearick et al., Chalasani et al. and Kaewert et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Kaewert et al. teaches that the module controller is configured to perform an equalization charge on the at least one battery in response to determining that the float timer has expired (Paragraph 0016).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Kaewert et al. does not disclose that at least one trigger has occurred wherein the at least one trigger comprises at least one of the estimate SOC of the at least one battery is greater than a threshold SOC and the at least one battery is in a float state. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that in regards to the at least one trigger being “at least one battery is in a float state”. Kaewert et al. explicitly discloses that the battery is in a float state (Figs. 9-10, “float mode” & Paragraph 0116).
In regards to the at least one trigger corresponding to “at least one trigger comprises at least one of the estimated SOC of the at least one battery is greater than a threshold SOC”. Kaewert et al. teaches that when the output current/power drawn/demanded by the battery exceeds a boost start threshold the operating state may shift into a boost mode (Paragraph 0116). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726