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 .
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
The claim 16 is missing in claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Zeidler et al. (WO2021122368A1), with publication date: 06/24/2021; the rejection relied on (US 2022/0311065) with the similar disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, Zeidler discloses a system (fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of battery cells electrically coupled together to form a battery pack (battery cells 104, 106, 108, fig. 1);
a controller (control unit 115, fig. 1); and
a passive balancing electrical network, the passive balancing electrical network coupled to the plurality of battery cells and to the controller (the electrical path with 116, 118, 120, etc), the passive balancing electrical network comprising a plurality of gates (the switching elements 120 connected to each battery cells, fig. 1) that are configured to be selectively opened and closed by the controller to achieve a plurality of different gate configurations (paragraph [0038], [0039]), wherein the controller is configured to: generate a pattern of measured voltages by: for each of the plurality of different gate configurations: set a state of the plurality of gates to be open or closed according to one of the plurality of different gate configurations (in step S12 at a time t1, the switching elements 120 associated in each case with battery cells 104, 106, 108 that are next-but-one neighbors are switched to a non-blocking state, paragraph [0039]);
measure voltages in the passive balancing electrical network; and compare the pattern of measured voltages to a plurality of patterns of expected voltages, wherein the plurality of patterns of expected voltages correspond to one of a plurality of fault locations or no fault (In step S18 a check is now made as to whether this expected value of the voltage difference was in fact measured. If a different value from this is measured, this means that at least one of the switching elements 120 of the first measuring circuit 110 or of the third measuring circuit 114 did not switch correctly, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Zeidler further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine at least one of a fault type and a fault location based on comparing the pattern of measured voltages to the plurality of patterns of expected voltages (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Zeidler further discloses wherein the controller is configured to implement an action based on the at least one of the fault type and the fault location (If a different value from this is measured, this means that at least one of the switching elements 120 of the first measuring circuit 110 or of the third measuring circuit 114 did not switch correctly. The voltage difference is, moreover, independent of the voltage Z battery cells 104, 106, 108, which itself is again dependent on the electrical load connected to the battery 100. Consequently, the method described on the basis of FIG. 2 makes it possible to determine, independently of the electrical load connected to the battery 100, whether the switching elements 120 of the first measuring circuit 110 and of the third measuring circuit 114 are switching correctly, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Zeidler further discloses wherein the action comprises discharging one or more of the plurality of battery cells (Switching a switching element 120 of a measuring circuit 110, 112, 114 into a non-blocking state causes the first current path of this measuring circuit 110, 112, 114 to be closed and the battery cell 104, 106, 108 associated with the measuring circuit 110, 112, 114 to be discharged. As a result, the charge stored in the battery cell 104, 106, 108, and thus the voltage of the battery cell 104, 106, 108, can be matched, paragraph [0035]; Note: the incorrect switching switch can be made conductive which cause the battery cell to be discharged).
Regarding claim 5, Zeidler further discloses wherein the fault type is an open circuit, a short circuit, or high resistance (If the capacitive element discharges differently at switching of the switching element than is expected on the basis of the time constant, this is an indication of a malfunction of the measuring circuit, for example it is an indication of a short circuit in the measuring circuit, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 7, Zeidler further discloses wherein the controller sets the state of the plurality of gates to be opened or closed according to a predetermined sequence (paragraph [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Zeidler further discloses wherein the predetermined sequence is dynamically changeable (paragraph [0038]-[0039] where at t0 and t1 the sequence is different).
Regarding claim 9, Zeidler further discloses wherein the voltages are each represented as one of an open circuit, a nominal value, or a change from a nominal value (paragraph [0030] shows the nominal value of voltages).
Regarding claim 10, Zeidler further discloses wherein the voltages measured in the passive balancing electrical network represent voltages measured across the plurality of battery cells (If the switching element 120 is not switched, the voltage of the battery cell 104, 106, 108 associated with the measuring circuit 110, 112, 114 is therefore measured by the voltage measuring unit 124, 126, 128, paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, Zeidler further discloses wherein each of the plurality of gates are connected electrically serially with a balance load (electrical load resistive element 118 is connected in series with the switching element 120, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Zeidler discloses a controller (115, fig. 1) for managing a plurality of battery cells electrically coupled together to form a battery pack(battery cells 104, 106, 108, fig. 1), the controller comprising:
a memory; a processor (the control unit 15 has the memory and processor to run the method shown in fig. 2) configured to:
generate, for each of a plurality of different gate configurations, a pattern of measured voltages by: i) setting a state of a plurality of gates of a passive balancing electrical network to be open or closed according to one of the plurality of different gate configurations, the passive balancing electrical network being electrically coupled with the plurality of battery cells; and ii) measuring voltages in the passive balancing electrical network (paragraph [0038]-[0039]); and compare the pattern of measured voltages to a plurality of patterns of expected voltages, wherein the plurality of patterns of expected voltages correspond to one of a plurality of fault locations or no fault (If a different value from this is measured, this means that at least one of the switching elements 120 of the first measuring circuit 110 or of the third measuring circuit 114 did not switch correctly. The voltage difference is, moreover, independent of the voltage Z battery cells 104, 106, 108, which itself is again dependent on the electrical load connected to the battery 100, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Zeidler further discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine at least one of a fault type and a fault location based on comparing the pattern of measured voltages to the plurality of patterns of expected voltages (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Zeidler further discloses wherein the processor is configured to implement an action based on the at least one of the fault type and the fault location(If a different value from this is measured, this means that at least one of the switching elements 120 of the first measuring circuit 110 or of the third measuring circuit 114 did not switch correctly. The voltage difference is, moreover, independent of the voltage Z battery cells 104, 106, 108, which itself is again dependent on the electrical load connected to the battery 100. Consequently, the method described on the basis of FIG. 2 makes it possible to determine, independently of the electrical load connected to the battery 100, whether the switching elements 120 of the first measuring circuit 110 and of the third measuring circuit 114 are switching correctly, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, Zeidler further discloses wherein implementing the action, the processor is configured to cause discharging one or more of the plurality of battery cells(Switching a switching element 120 of a measuring circuit 110, 112, 114 into a non-blocking state causes the first current path of this measuring circuit 110, 112, 114 to be closed and the battery cell 104, 106, 108 associated with the measuring circuit 110, 112, 114 to be discharged. As a result, the charge stored in the battery cell 104, 106, 108, and thus the voltage of the battery cell 104, 106, 108, can be matched, paragraph [0035]; Note: the incorrect switching switch can be made conductive which cause the battery cell to be discharged).
Regarding claim 17, Zeidler further discloses each of the plurality of gates are connected electrically serially with a balance load (electrical load resistive element 118 is connected in series with the switching element 120, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Zeidler discloses a method of managing a plurality of battery cells electrically coupled together to form a battery pack(battery cells 104, 106, 108, fig. 1), the method comprising:
generating, for each of a plurality of different gate configurations, a pattern of measured voltages by:i) setting a state of a plurality of gates of a passive balancing electrical network to be open or closed according to one of the plurality of different gate configurations, the passive balancing electrical network being electrically coupled with the plurality of battery cells (paragraph [0038]-[0039]); and ii) measuring voltages in the passive balancing electrical network; comparing the pattern of measured voltages to a plurality of patterns of expected voltages, wherein the plurality of patterns of expected voltages correspond to one of a plurality of fault locations or no fault; and determine at least one of a fault type and a fault location based on comparing the pattern of measured voltages to the plurality of patterns of expected voltages (If a different value from this is measured, this means that at least one of the switching elements 120 of the first measuring circuit 110 or of the third measuring circuit 114 did not switch correctly. The voltage difference is, moreover, independent of the voltage Z battery cells 104, 106, 108, which itself is again dependent on the electrical load connected to the battery 100, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Zeidler further discloses the method further comprising: determining at least one of a fault type and a fault location based on comparing the pattern of measured voltages to the plurality of patterns of expected voltages (If a different value from this is measured, this means that at least one of the switching elements 120 of the first measuring circuit 110 or of the third measuring circuit 114 did not switch correctly. The voltage difference is, moreover, independent of the voltage Z battery cells 104, 106, 108, which itself is again dependent on the electrical load connected to the battery 100. Consequently, the method described on the basis of FIG. 2 makes it possible to determine, independently of the electrical load connected to the battery 100, whether the switching elements 120 of the first measuring circuit 110 and of the third measuring circuit 114 are switching correctly, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 20, Zeidler further discloses the method further comprising: implementing an action based on comparing the pattern of measured voltages to the plurality of patterns of expected voltages, and wherein the action is implemented based on the at least one of the fault type and the fault location(Switching a switching element 120 of a measuring circuit 110, 112, 114 into a non-blocking state causes the first current path of this measuring circuit 110, 112, 114 to be closed and the battery cell 104, 106, 108 associated with the measuring circuit 110, 112, 114 to be discharged. As a result, the charge stored in the battery cell 104, 106, 108, and thus the voltage of the battery cell 104, 106, 108, can be matched, paragraph [0035]; Note: the incorrect switching switch can be made conductive which cause the battery cell to be discharged).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler (US 2022/0311065) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuroda (US 2007/0285058).
Regarding claim 6, Zeidler discloses the system of claim 1. However, Zeidler is silent about the battery system is deployed on an aircraft and wherein the controller is configured to set the state of the plurality of gates during flight of the aircraft.
Kuroda discloses the battery system (fig. 1) deployed on an aircraft (paragraph [0030]) and can be controlled to set the state of the plurality of gates during flight of the aircraft (paragraph [0040]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to install well controlled Zeidler’s battery system in the aircraft as taught by Kuroda, in order to enhances safety, extends battery life, and optimizes performance by ensuring all cells operate within safe, uniform voltage ranges. It prevents dangerous overcharging, reduces thermal runaway risks (essential for flight safety), and maximizes usable capacity for consistent, reliable, and longer-lasting power.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIA KOUSAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, 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.
SADIA . KOUSAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859