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 .
Detailed Action
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 23, and 24 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 7, 9-16, 18, 23-25, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/010126 (hereafter, Karsai) in view of Tsukamoto, U.S. Patent No. 6,531,847, in further view of Burchardt, U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0149451.
Per Claim 1, Karsai discloses a processor-implemented method for energy storage comprising:
accessing a battery system comprising a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1; smart battery system 102 and battery modules 110 comprise module cells),
wherein the plurality of battery cells and a plurality of software-controlled switches comprise a plurality of battery columns made up of battery cells arranged in series using the software-controlled switches, wherein the plurality of battery columns is connected in parallel using the software-controlled switches (Paragraphs 36 and 37; SW controlled switches connect batteries in series or parallel to form a configuration. Paragraph 62, Figures 6A and 6B; “the battery pack either has five sets of cells in series where each set has two cells in parallel or there are two parallel strings where each string has five cells in series”. Fig. 6B shows switches selectively connecting the battery cells in series and battery packs in parallel.);
obtaining information on the battery system; providing the information on the battery system through a software interface (Paragraphs 35 and 57; battery parameters; Paragraphs 68-75, Fig. 15 describe how the application controller can be implemented using a computing device where a user communicates with the smart battery system via a graphical user interface and I/O devices.);
receiving a set of power request parameters through the software interface (Paragraph 35; “the application 106 may communicate load requirements to the smart battery system 102”; Paragraph 56, obtain load requirement 502);
defining a configuration for the battery system based on the power request parameters and the information on the battery system; and reconfiguring the battery system, based on the configuration for the battery system that was defined (Paragraphs 56-60, Figure 5; An optimal switch configuration is determined and implemented within the smart battery system)
grouping the plurality of battery cells into battery units (Paragraphs 36-40; battery modules 110);
and implementing a failsafe system using the battery units (Paragraphs 12, 36, 46, 47, and 67).
Karsai does not specifically mention that the failsafe system is based on battery unit impedance, voltage rate-of-change, and a temperature rate-of-change, as claimed.
However, Tsukamoto discloses a safety circuit 100 having a battery 104 for powering an electronic device 108. Sensors 116 and 120 detect temperature and pressure and are connected to a detector circuit 124 for measuring voltage 128 across and current 132 traveling through the battery 104. In the event that thresholds are reached, failsafe measures are taken with respect to the battery (Col. 4 lines 20-40, Fig. 1). More specifically, a safety control circuit 136 monitors internal battery impedance 320, rate of change in voltage, and rate of change in temperature if a failsafe operation with respect to the battery is necessary (Col. 5 line 63 – Col. 6 line 32; see also Claims 1, 3, and 6-8).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Tsukamoto battery safety techniques within Karsai’s battery unit failsafe system because it can prevent real-world failures, such as dangerous over-heating and/or rupture of batteries (Col. 1 lines 42-53 and 61-67).
Karsai discloses that the batteries can be removed, replaced and/or added on to as necessary without altering the operation of the overall system (Paragraph 40). Karsai does not specifically disclose that the batteries are “preowned”, or used/recycled.
However, in a common field of endeavor (battery management in vehicular systems), Burchardt discloses a battery system 300 that selectively (via switches) connects second-life batteries (preowned) in series/parallel to manage the charge/discharge of the battery system (Paragraphs 10, 42, 45, 49).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system of Karsai through the use of “preowned” batteries, as taught by Burchardt because repurposing batteries to be used in a controlled battery system where hardware and software can be used to extend the life of a preowned battery helps is cost efficient compared to the production cost of replacing batteries with brand new batteries (Burchardt; Paragraphs 43, 48, and 50).
Per Claim 2, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the reconfiguring is accomplished using the software-controlled switches within the battery system (Paragraph 36; “software instructions to monitor battery status and to control a network of switches that interconnect the batteries 114”. Paragraphs 57-60).
Per Claims 3 and 4, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the information on the battery system is based on battery cell profiles and wherein the battery cell profiles reflect disparate battery cell performance (Paragraphs 12, 35, and 54-57; Battery parameters can represent the broadly claimed “battery cell profiles”. Additionally, batteries can comprise different “remaining useful life” and/or become faulty.).
Per Claim 7, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the software interface comprises an application program interface (API) (Paragraph 69; The controller portions of the Application 104 and smart battery system 102 can be implemented using software components. It is known in the art that an “API” is merely a way for two or more computer software components to communicate with each other.).
Per Claim 9, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the providing of the information on the battery system through the software interface is based on receiving a query on availability of output from the battery system through the software interface (Paragraphs 35-36; The application controller may communicate load requirements to the smart battery system, and the smart battery system may communicate a status to the application controller.).
Per Claim 10, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the power request parameters include voltage, power, total energy, external system operating requirements, internal system operating requirements, user settings, user preferences, or cost (Paragraph 56; voltage).
Per Claims 11 and 12, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising negotiating, using one or more processors (Paragraphs 69-70), a subsequent set of power parameters based on the set of power request parameters received and the information on the battery system and wherein the negotiating is accomplished during run time (Paragraphs 56-60 and Fig. 5; A prognostic metric may be the amount of time that the smart battery can meet the load requirement (i.e., operation lifetime), the battery can respond to changes in the smart battery’s ability to meet the load requirements or may respond to changes in the application’s power requirements, and the second simulation entails allowing the optimization strategy to be used during runtime.).
Per Claim 13, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising decommissioning a portion of the battery system using the software interface to the battery system (Paragraphs 5, 12, and 61; A faulty battery may be switched out so that it no longer supplies power to the application. That is a new switch configuration is adopted to disconnect the faulty battery.).
Per Claim 14, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the providing the information on the battery system is accomplished using secure TCP/IP protocols (Paragraph 75; “interface 1527 may include one or more components configured to transmit and receive data via a communication network, such as the Internet, a local area network, a workstation peer-to-peer network, a direct link network, a wireless network, or any other suitable communication platform.”).
Per Claims 15 and 16, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the defining the configuration for the battery system is based on one or more predefined configurations and wherein the one or more predefined configurations include a configuration for charging, a configuration for standby, or a configuration for discharge (Paragraphs 4-6; “configuring the switching circuitry to connect the module cells in a particular switch configuration (i.e., setup). In other words, the setup may be adjusted to maximize the time that the battery module can provide sufficient power to properly enable the application (e.g., aircraft or vehicle) or to extend the number of cycles that a module cell may be charged/discharged.”).
Per Claim 18, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the reconfiguring the battery system includes a different voltage arrangement for charging the battery system from a voltage arrangement for discharging the battery system (Paragraphs 4, 44, and 56; “extend the number of cycles that a module cell may be charged/discharged”, Different charge/discharge configurations are tested to find the optimum configuration for each purpose.).
Per Claims 23 and 24, please refer to the above rejection of Claim 1, as the limitations are substantially similar and the mapping of limitations to the reference are equally applicable. Karsai teaches a computer readable medium embodiment (Paragraph 69) and a computer system comprising memory which stores instructions and processors to execute the instructions for the purpose of performing the claimed steps (Paragraphs 70 and 71).
Per Claim 25, Karsai further teaches wherein the failsafe system monitors safe battery cell levels and selectively disconnects battery units from the battery system (Paragraphs 12, 36, 46, 47, and 67).
Karsai does not specify that upon detection of a battery unit failure, initiating a discharge event.
However, Tsukamoto discloses initiating a safety electrical discharge event for the failed battery unit upon detection of a failure condition (Col. 4 lines 34-40 and 45-53).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Tsukamoto’s failed battery discharge teaching within the system of Karsai because in the event of a battery failure the discharge event can dissipate energy from the batter in the form of heat, thus preventing the battery itself from heating to dangerous levels (Tsukamoto, Col. 4 lines 45-53).
Per Claim 29, Karsai discloses the method of claim 12 wherein the negotiating is further based on reobtaining information on the battery system periodically from scanning, profiles, or sensors, to enable defining a new configuration for the battery system, and wherein the configuration of battery cells and columns within the battery system is dynamically adjusted via software-controlled switches to achieve a negotiated target voltage, current, and duration (Paragraphs 4-11; Specifically, paragraph 8 teaches that a load requirement for a predicted/desired/negotiated operation time may be determined by an application. For example, a load requirement, for an aircraft operating for a period of time may be computed. The load requirement includes a minimum voltage/current threshold for a smart battery system to operate for the desired time. Paragraph 11 further teaches that discharge models are continually/dynamically computed and the optimal switch configuration can be continually reevaluated to accommodate battery degradation, faults, or changing load requirements. The information regarding battery degradation and faults are acquired by sensors for the battery parameters, Paragraphs 7 and 56.).
Per Claim 32, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the reconfiguring is initiated in response to a user request (Paragraph 60 discusses that the battery optimization process can be repeated as necessary based on a change in the application, such as a change in load requirements. Paragraph 56 discusses that load requirements may include a voltage, current, power, energy requirement and may include an expected duration (e.g. flight time). These characteristics of the load are directly influenced by a user’s request for the duration and manner that the vehicle is to be operated.).
* * * * * * *
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/010126 (hereafter, Karsai) in view of Tsukamoto, U.S. Patent No. 6,531,847, in further view of Burchardt, U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0149451, in further view of Dhawan, U.S. Patent No. 11,444,338.
Per Claim 5, Karsai discloses repeating the battery optimization process “on a regular basis”, and lists as an example, automatically repeating the process after a period of one or more seconds. Karsai does not specifically teach an interview as small as “every millisecond”.
However, Dhawan discloses a smart battery system where a monitoring module will constantly collect key data related to the state of a battery system (Column 42, lines 4-13, Figure 10).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the battery optimization process of Karsai at a much smaller interval, as taught by Dhawan, because one millisecond is equivalent to a “constant” monitoring interval which offers the most accurate and up-to-date information for updating and optimizing the battery system.
Per Claim 6, Karsai discloses the method of claim 5 wherein the information that was reobtained enables dynamic reconfiguring of the battery system (Paragraph 60).
* * * * * * *
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/010126 (hereafter, Karsai) in view of Tsukamoto, U.S. Patent No. 6,531,847, in further view of Burchardt, U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0149451 and Chaiken et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,985,591.
Per Claim 8, Karsai discloses a network of switches 116 interconnecting battery modules to implement a smart battery system (Paragraph 37). Karsai does not specifically mention that the switches comprise a crossbar switch.
However, Chaiken discloses a system to improve battery performance where a controller 34 controls a crossbar switch 40 to selectively connect battery cells from a plurality of batteries in a parallel or series configuration (Col. 6 lines 4-32).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the switches of Karsai by using a crossbar switch, as taught by Chaiken, for the purpose of interconnecting the battery cells/modules. This would have been obvious since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element (crossbar switch) for another (individual switches) to obtain predictable results is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2141, section III(B). Additionally, a crossbar switch inherently comprises a plurality of switches, therefore, utilizing the crossbar switch is merely a design choice.
* * * * * * *
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/010126 (hereafter, Karsai) in view of Tsukamoto, U.S. Patent No. 6,531,847, in further view of Burchardt, U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0149451 and Christophersen et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0254859.
Per Claim 21, Karsai discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the failsafe system monitors safe battery cell levels and selectively disconnects battery units from the battery system (Paragraphs 12, 36, 46, 47, and 67).
Karsai does not specify that the disconnection of batteries occurs prior to a battery unit failure.
However, Christophersen teaches that battery impedance data can be used to determine that a battery should be replaced prior to a battery failure occurring (Paragraph 5).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Christophersen’s battery impedance detection method within Karsai’s battery unit failsafe system because it can allow for the swapping/changing of battery cells/modules prior to a failure occurring with the battery that could put the system at potential danger of damage or operation loss.
* * * * * * *
Claims 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/010126 (hereafter, Karsai) in view of Tsukamoto, U.S. Patent No. 6,531,847, in further view of Burchardt, U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0149451 and Pichai et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,581,728.
Per Claims 22 and 27, Karsai further teaches that the module cells 118 in each battery module 110 include at least two batteries 114, and that batteries 114 are typically lithium-ion polymer batteries, but other battery types (NiMH, NiCd, etc.) are within the scope of the present disclosure (Paragraph 38). Karsai does not specifically state that the “other battery types” are used concurrently within the battery series connection of the invention.
However, Pichai similarly teaches an electrical power system 800 comprising energy storage units 820-840 connected in series or parallel, and said energy storage units can comprise multiple chemistries, such as lithium-ion and sodium-ion (Col. 10 lines 22-51; sodium-ion teaches the limitations of claim 27).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement multiple battery chemistries in a multi-cell power system, as taught by Pichai, within the system of Karsai, in order to leverage the benefits of each storage unit chemistry, such as power density, cost, and lifespan (Pichai; Col. 10 lines 22-51).
* * * * * * *
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/010126 (hereafter, Karsai) in view of Tsukamoto, U.S. Patent No. 6,531,847, in further view of Burchardt, U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0149451 and Zeng et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,431,816.
Per Claim 26, Karsai further teaches that the module cells 118 in each battery module 110 include at least two batteries 114, and that batteries 114 are typically lithium-ion polymer batteries, but other battery types (NiMH, NiCd, etc.) are within the scope of the present disclosure (Paragraph 38). Karsai does not specifically state that the “other battery types” are used concurrently within the battery series connection of the invention.
However, Zeng similarly teaches a battery (battery pack 82) comprising a plurality of battery modules (10) and further teaches various combinations of series and parallel connections utilizing lithium metal and lithium-ion batteries (Col. 9 lines 1-14, Figure 3).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement multiple battery chemistries in a multi-battery module power system, as taught by Zeng, within the system of Karsai, due to the numerous advantages including improved (more uniform) current distribution allowing fast charge and discharge, increased dissipation, reduced resistance, and reduced or eliminated lithium plating (Zeng, Col. 9 lines 1-14).
* * * * * * *
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/010126 (hereafter, Karsai) in view of Tsukamoto, U.S. Patent No. 6,531,847, in further view of Burchardt, U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0149451 and Crane et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0133690.
Per Claim 28, Karsai does not specifically disclose the voltage arrangement for charging the battery system includes reducing a charging voltage, and increasing a battery system voltage.
However, Crane similarly discloses a battery cell management system and further teaches that if an operator or application desires a longer battery life cycle then a voltage arrangement may be selected to reduce the maximum charging voltage across each cell/battery and increase the minimum discharge voltage across each cell/battery (Paragraph 114).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Crane’s extended battery life voltage arrangement within the system of Karsai because it allows system operators/users an option in choosing to prolong battery life on a per cycle or lifetime basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 and 31 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 30 requires the battery cell profile to include each of the following pieces of information: manufacturing date; batch number; serial number; in-service date; removed-from-service date; and notations about observed wear, cracks, and damage.
Claim 31 requires the battery cell profiles be based on manufacturer specifications, acceptance testing, in situ system testing, and collected sensor information.
While prior art is shown to teach several of the above features, the Examiner asserts that it would not have been obvious to combine Karsai, Tsukamoto, Burchardt, and the prior art to teach all of the specific limitations when considered in combination with the limitations provided in claims 1, 3, and 30, and claims 1, 3, and 31.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record but not relied upon in the Examiner’s rejections is provided below along with the reasoning for considering it pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 10,431,996 teaches a storage module storing the following smart battery information: “brand/type/manufacturing date/serial number/quality inspection number of the smart battery, charging and discharging data information including voltage/current/internal resistance/temperature and the like collected by the collection module of the battery during charging and discharging, information received by the communication interface and information stored by the main control module. All of the above information has time stamps for invoking.” (Col. 6 lines 55-64)
U.S. Patent No. 10,906,511 teaches (Col. 16 lines 39-48): “Examples of the battery manufacturing information can include the identity of the battery manufacturer (e.g., batteries made by different manufacturers may have different characteristics, although their battery specifications may be the same), manufacturing dates (e.g., batteries made on different dates may have different characteristics), manufacturing batches (e.g., batteries made in different batches may still have different characteristics), battery hardware/firmware versions, and/or manufacturing serial numbers (e.g., individual batteries can have different characteristics)”.
U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0413053 teaches (Paragraph 91): “In step S240, the data collected from the plurality of information collection processes is processed in a data format according to a design of the database to store the data in the database 48a. Then, in step S250, the processed data is stored in the database 48a. The stored data includes, for each reusable battery, a battery serial number, a battery manufacture date, a battery reuse start date, a discharge voltage, a discharge current, a battery temperature, an environmental temperature, and a data acquisition time.”
U.S. Patent No. 11,131,717 teaches (Col. 4 line 61 – Col. 5 line 3): “(23) Described methods and systems allow in-situ leakage current testing of individual battery cells in battery packs. For purposes of this disclosure, “in-situ testing” is defined as testing performed while the battery pack remains operational and continues to operate, e.g., being charged or discharged to receive charging power or provide power output to an external load. In-situ testing should be distinguished from offline testing, e.g., when the entire battery pack is taken offline and is not operational (e.g., disconnected from the external load).”
- Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. 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).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights