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
Claims 8-13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and recites “series arrangement” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 2, line 5. Thus, Examiner considered claim 8 is dependent upon claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 depends on claim 1 and recites “nominal voltage” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 2, line 5. Thus, Examiner considered claim 18 is dependent upon claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 , 15, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3110652, hereinafter 652’.
As to Claim 1, 652’ discloses in figure 2A (see figure below):-
PNG
media_image1.png
696
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a configurable power supply system [see figure above] comprising:
a first battery [battery 220] having a first corresponding bi-directional DC-DC converter [element (224) and see also ¶0039, ¶0054, ¶0056] connected in parallel with the first battery, said first battery being selectively electrically coupled to a high voltage bus [bus line 203] through the first corresponding bi-directional DC-DC converter or through a first corresponding contactor, and
one or more second batteries [see figure above, element 210] each having a second corresponding bi-directional DC-DC converter [second converter 214] connected in parallel thereto and each being selectively electrically coupled, directly or indirectly, to the high voltage bus [power line (203)] through said second corresponding bi-directional DC-DC convert er or through a second corresponding contactor [see page above, the second converter (214) connects the battery (210) to connect to the load or the charger power supply; see also ¶0053, ¶0058].
As to Claim 2, 652’ discloses in figure 2a, wherein the first battery and the one or more second batteries are connected in parallel in a parallel arrangement or in series in a series arrangement, and wherein the first battery and the one or more second batteries have a same or substantially the same nominal voltage [see ¶0053 and 0058].
As to claim 15, 652’ discloses in figure 2a, wherein the first battery and the one or more second batteries each have a cell-to-pack configuration [see ¶0032 and also battery cells are disclosed and each battery pack has plurality of battery cells; see also figure above].
As to claim 17, 652’ discloses in figures 1-2a, wherein the configurable power supply system is capable of being integrated into an existing electric vehicle driving system without a need to adjust a vehicle controller of the electric vehicle driving system [noted that the power supply is used with the vehicle so it is integrated in the vehicle system and see figure 1].
As to claim 18, 652’ discloses in figures 1-2a, wherein the nominal voltage is a value between the range of 100V - 1000V [see ¶009].
Regarding Claim 21, 652’ discloses the claim invention as claim 1 above, (see rejection above, 35 USC § 102), Further 652’ discloses in figure 2a, wherein the first battery and the one or more second batteries each have a cell-to-pack configuration [see ¶0032 and also battery cells are disclosed and each battery pack has plurality of battery cells; see also figure above].
As to Claims 21, the method merely recites the steps of using the elements of the device as disclosed above. Thus, the method steps will be met during the normal operation of the apparatus described above.
.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.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 652’ in view of Sung et al. (US 2021/0082480), hereinafter Sung.
As to Claim 3, 652’ discloses in figure 2a, wherein the configurable power supply system has said parallel arrangement, and wherein the first battery is configured to be electrically coupled to the high voltage bus in a single battery pre-charging mode to pre-charge a load via the first corresponding bi-directional DC-DC converter [noted that when the first battery is connected to the bus it provides power to the load; see ¶0015] and to the high voltage bus in a first operational mode to provide continuous power to the high voltage bus [when the switches [see responsive to completion of the single battery pre-charging mode, via the first corresponding contactor, wherein the one or more second batteries are each configured to be electrically coupled to the high voltage bus in a pack-to-pack balancing mode via a second corresponding bi- directional DC-DC converter, and wherein the one or more second batteries are each further configured to, responsive to completion of the pack-to-pack balancing mode, be electrically coupled to the high voltage bus in a second operational mode, to provide continuous power to the high voltage bus via the second corresponding contactor [see ¶0072-¶0073; noted that the batteries are connected to the power bus and supplies power to the load via DC-DC converter].
652’ does not disclose explicitly, pre-charge a DC-link capacitor of a high voltage load.
Sung discloses in figures 1 and 2, pre-charge a DC-link capacitor [element 30] pre-charge a DC-link capacitor of a high voltage load [see ¶0034].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add DC-link capacitor n 652’s apparatus as taught by Sung in order to stabilize the battery voltage and also avoid inrush currents.
As to claim 4, 652’ discloses in figure 2a, wherein in said pack-to-pack balancing mode, the second corresponding bi-directional DC-DC converter is operable to equalize voltages of the first battery and of the one or more second batteries through a bi-directional flow of current from the high voltage bus [see ¶0072-0073].
As to claim 5, 652’ discloses in figure 2a, wherein during the second operational mode, the high voltage bus has a same voltage as the voltage of the first battery and of the one or more second batteries connected in parallel to the first battery [when the switches are closed and the batteries are connected in parallel then the with batteries will have the same voltage].
.As to claim 6, 652’ discloses in figure 2a, same voltage is about 400V [see ¶009 voltage 300v and more disclosed].
.As to claim 7, 652’ discloses in figure 2a, wherein the first operational mode and the second operational mode are performed together, responsive to completion of the pack-to-pack balancing mode [the batteries are balanced pack-to pack and see ¶0071-¶0072].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 652’ in view of Sung, in view of Otsuki et al. (US 2019/0210474), hereinafter Otsuki.
As to claim 14, 652’ discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the high voltage load is an inverter.
Otsuki discloses in figure 1, wherein the high voltage load is an inverter [inverters (33) and (34)] .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add inventor circuit in 652’s apparatus as taught by Otsuki in order to provide AC power to the load when it is necessary.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 652’ in view of Lasagni (US 2016/0243952).
As to claim 16, Lasagni discloses in figure 1, wherein the first or second bi- directional DC-DC converter has a 1:1 voltage transform ratio.
Lasagni discloses in figure 1, wherein the first or second bi- directional DC-DC converter has a 1:1 voltage transform ratio [see ¶0029].
. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use DC/DC converter with ration 1:1 in 652’s apparatus as taught by Lasagni in order to provide maximize efficiency output.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 652’ in view of in view of DE Breucker et al. (US 2018/0364311), hereinafter DE.
As to claim 19, 652’ discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein an output power of the first and second corresponding bi-directional DC-DC converter is about 6kW.
DE discloses in figure 1, wherein an output power of the first and second corresponding bi-directional DC-DC converter is about 6kW [¶0070].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use DC/DC converter with 6KW rating in 652’s apparatus as taught by DE in order to provide efficient power to the load.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 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.
For Claim 8:Primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the configurable power supply system has said series arrangement, and wherein the first battery is configured to be electrically coupled to the high voltage bus via the first corresponding bi-directional DC-DC converter in a collective pre-charging mode, and the one or more second batteries are each configured to be connected in series with the first battery in said collective pre-charging mode, via the second corresponding bi- directional DC- DC converter to collectively pre-charge a DC-link capacitor of a high voltage load electrically coupled to the high voltage bus, and wherein the first battery and the one or more second batteries are further configured to, responsive to completion of said collective pre-charging mode, be connected in series via the first and second corresponding contactors in a third operational mode to provide continuous power to the high voltage bus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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 A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859