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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/091,639 filed on 12/30/2022 in which claims 1-20 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(e), acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for priority based on US provisional applications #63/295,442, filed on 30th December 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2023, 06/13/2023,10/24/2023 and 02/23/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner and placed of record. Initialed copies are attached herewith.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4-7,19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard et al., (Girard) USPAT 9,166,419 in view of Ashcraft et al., (Ashcraft) US 2018/0226823.
Regarding claims 1,19 and 20: Girard at least discloses and shows in Fig. 1:s A system for temperature management of supercapacitors of an electric vehicle(100)(see col. 2, lines 65-col. 3, line 32; col. 10, lines 42-col. 11, line 5), the system comprising: a plurality of batteries (112)(see col. 2, lines 65-col. 3, line 7) (instead of supercapacitors); at least one heating unit(124) coupled to the plurality of batteries (112)(see Fig. 1)(instead of supercapacitors); at least one cooling unit(128) coupled to the plurality of batteries (112)(instead of supercapacitors); at least one temperature sensor(as included in control module 116; see col. 3, lines 4-7) coupled to the plurality of batteries (112)(instead of supercapacitors); a controller(116), including a processor and a memory, configured to: determine if a measured temperature from the at least one temperature sensor is within a predetermined range; engage the heating unit, when the measured temperature is below the predetermined range; and/or engage the cooling unit, when the measured temperature is above the predetermined range(col. 3, lines 19-32; col. 10, lines 42-col. 11, line 5).
Girard discloses all the claimed invention except for the limitations of, “a plurality of supercapacitors”. Instead, Girard discloses a plurality of batteries.
In the same field of endeavor, Randall discloses factual evidences of, a plurality of supercapacitors (60/120) being an alternative choice energy storage device instead of rechargeable batteries (see ¶¶¶[0033],[0036] and [0071]).
In the same filed of endeavor, namely electrical energy storage system, Ashcraft also discloses, the use of supercapacitor (110)(see ¶[0029]) as an alternative form of energy storage device instead of rechargeable batteries.
Girard and Ashcraft are vehicle electrical energy storage system analogous art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rechargeable batteries of Girard with the supercapacitors of Ashcraft because supercapacitor provides high power capability compared to rechargeable batteries so as to being able to provide spikes in power for periods of high acceleration or being able to provide energy for extended trips, as per the teachings of Ashcraft (¶¶[0019]-[0020], ¶[0029]). It is also known in the art that supercapacitors also known as ultracapacitors stores 10 to 100 times more energy per unit volume or mass than electrolytic capacitors and they can accept and deliver charge much faster than batteries and tolerate many more charge and discharge cycles than rechargeable batteries.
Accordingly, claims 1,19 and 20 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Girard and Ashcraft discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and disclosed above in claim 1. Girard further teaches, wherein the predetermined range is less than an operating temperature range(see col. 2, lines 65-col. 3, line 32; note- the working temperature range being the any temperature between the low temperature threshold and the high temperature threshold).
Regarding claim 5, Girard as modified by Ashcraft discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and disclosed above in claim 1. Girard further teaches, wherein the at least one heating unit(124) is operable to heat one of an entire group of supercapacitors, a portion of a group of supercapacitors, and/or a single supercapacitor(see col. 2, lines 65-col. 3, line 32).
Regarding claim 6, Girard in view of Ashcraft discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and disclosed above in claim 1. Girard further teaches, wherein the at least one cooling unit(128) is operable to cool one of an entire group of supercapacitors, a portion of a group of supercapacitors, and/or a single supercapacitor(see col. 2, lines 65-col. 3, line 32).
Regarding claim 7, Girard in view of Ashcraft discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and disclosed above in claim 1. Girard further teaches, wherein the at least one temperature sensor comprises a temperature sensor for at least one of: a group of supercapacitors, a portion of a group of supercapacitors, and/or a single supercapacitor(temperature sensor is included in control module 116; see col. 3, lines 4-7).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard et al., (Girard) USPAT 9,166,419 in view of Ashcraft et al., (Ashcraft) US 2018/0226823 and in further view of Yebka et al., (Yebka) USPAT 11,394,227.
Regarding claim 2, Girard and Ashcraft discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and disclosed above in claim 1 but stay silent regarding the limitations of:
wherein the predetermined range is from -40 degrees Celsius to +70 degrees Celsius.
However, Yebka discloses factual evidence of a range of temperature of -20℃ to 45℃ outside which the batteries(supercapacitors as modified by Ashcraft and/orYebka) does not have enough capacity to start up due to low temperature(see Yebka; col. 9, lines 45-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corporation of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); See MPEP 2144.05)
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have had , wherein the predetermined range to be from -40℃ to +70℃, into the system of Girard in view of Ashcraft and Yebka, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Girard and Ashcraft discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and disclosed above in claim 1 but stay silent regarding the limitations of:
wherein the predetermined range is from -20 degrees Celsius to +60 degrees Celsius.
However, Yebka discloses factual evidence of a range of temperature of -20℃ to 45℃ outside of which the batteries(supercapacitors as modified by Ashcraft and/orYebka) does not have enough capacity to start up due to low temperature(see Yebka; col. 9, lines 45-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corporation of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); See MPEP 2144.05)
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have had , wherein the predetermined range to be from -20℃ to +60℃, into the system of Girard in view of Ashcraft and Yebka, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
However, Yebka discloses factual evidence of, wherein the predetermined range is less than an operating temperature range.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Girard et al., (Girard) USPAT 9,166,419 in view of Ashcraft et al., (Ashcraft) US 2018/0226823
Regarding claim 8, Girard and Ashcraft discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and disclosed above in claim 1 but stay silent regarding the limitations of:
wherein the plurality of supercapacitors is grouped into sets comprising two or more supercapacitors, and each set has at least one heating unit and at least one cooling unit, and at least one temperature sensor.
However, Girard discloses and shows in Fig. 1, a battery pack (104) with series connected batteries (112) with the series combination connected in parallel, and each set has at least one heating unit(124) and at least one cooling unit(128), and at least one temperature sensor(as included in control module 116). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have in the system of modified Girard in view of Ashcraft, wherein the plurality of supercapacitors is grouped into sets comprising two or more supercapacitors, and each set has at least one heating unit and at least one cooling unit, and at least one temperature sensor, as recited, in order to increase the total capacitance and thereby the total energy stored in the parallel configuration and to increase the overall voltage rating in the series configuration. Furthermore, a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results and when a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in a different one, so that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, the variation is likely obvious. It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have into the system of Girard in view of Ashcraft, “wherein the plurality of supercapacitors is grouped into sets comprising two or more supercapacitors, and each set has at least one heating unit and at least one cooling unit, and at least one temperature sensor”, since a patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed combination of elements was “obvious to try,” particularly when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such that a POSITA would have had good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding claim 9, Girard in view of Ashcraft fails to expressly disclose, each set has at least one heating unit and at least one cooling unit, and at least one temperature sensor, and wherein each set has at least one temperature sensor for each of the two or more supercapacitors. Instead, modified Girard discloses a single unit (104)(see Fig. 1) having at least one temperature sensor(as included in control module 116). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had into the system of Girard as modified by Ashcraft, wherein each set has at least one temperature sensor for each of the two or more supercapacitors, as recited because because such ‘structure, product, or process’ is considered to be a duplication of parts that has no patentable significance unless a new unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04.
Accordingly claims 8-9 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Girard in view of Ashcraft discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 9. Ashcraft further discloses the temperature sensor being external(see ¶[0041])(note-the BMS measures the temperature of energy storage components 104, ¶[0064], 106 and 108; or the like such as supercapacitor 110). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have into the system of Girard as modified by Ashcraft to further comprising at least one external temperature sensor capable of measuring ambient temperature, in order to improve the accuracy of the temperature measurements by comparing internal supercapacitor temperature with threshold ambient temperatures as determined by the external temperature sensor.
Accordingly, claim 10 would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 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.
Regarding claim 11, patentability exists at least in part with the claimed limitations of, “…wherein the ambient temperature is monitored to determine if the temperature is rising or falling and comparing a current time with an expected start time of the vehicle.”
Claims 12-18 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 11 and thus are also allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9:00AM-6:30PM.
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 A 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 September 10, 2025