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 .
Status of Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/131,180 received April 29, 2026. Claims 1-20 are left as original.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It is not clear how the claimed “inner loop” controls battery current, nor is it clear how the “outer loop” controls the battery voltage. They appear to be mere statements without presenting a clear explanation and understanding of what is being claimed. In the examiner’s opinion, the use of these terms in the specification causes these claims to fail the enablement requirement, and is not remedied by the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brabec U.S. PGPub 2011/0025125 A1 (hereinafter Brabec).
NOTE: The examiner has provided additional information to some of the one-to-one comparisons of the claimed invention’s limitation(s) to the Brabec reference to help the applicant understand the Brabec reference and how the examiner relates the Brabec reference to each limitation. The examiner has underlined and bolded each additional information reference, but has left the original references as well so as not to confuse the applicant.
Regarding Claim 1, Brabec teaches a battery staging system (Brabec, Figs. 2-4; Abstract) comprising a first battery (Brabec, Figs. 2-4, Element 95 of 80; Paras. [0043] and [0049]) in operative communication with an electrical load (Brabec, Fig 1. Element 55; Para. [0049]), a second battery (Brabec, Figs. 2-4, Element 100 of 80; Paras. [0043] and [0049]) in operative communication with the electrical load (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated) and in operative communication with the first battery (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated), a boost controller (Brabec, Fig. 2, Element 300; Para. [0055]) in operative communication with the first battery and the second battery (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated), an inductor (Brabec, Fig. 2, Element “L”; Para. [0054]) in operative communication with the boost controller (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated, via switches A-D), the first battery (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated, via switch A or B), a ground (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated, via switch B or D) and the second battery (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated, via switch C or D), whereby the inductor is connected between the first battery and the ground for a predetermined time to obtain a predetermined inductor current (Brabec, Fig. 3; Paras. [0058] - [0059], PWM control to set “Iref” and “Vref” according to sensed “Isense” and “VsenseO1”), the boost controller is configured to pull a first battery current from the first battery and drive the first battery current into the second battery responsive to the predetermined inductor current (Brabec, Paras. [0054] and [0059]), the inductor being connected to the second battery responsive to the inductor obtaining the predetermined inductor current (Brabec, Para. [0059]. Where the inductor current is sensed by “R” resistor in Fig. 3), whereby the inductor is reconnected between the first battery and the ground before the inductor current reaches zero (Brabec, Paras. [0054] and [0059]), and the boost converter controller configured to pull the first battery current from the first battery until the first battery voltage reaches a target voltage (Brabec, Paras. [0054] and [0059], “Vref”).
Regarding Claim 10, Brabec teaches a process for transferring charge from an offline battery to an online battery utilizing a boost controller (Brabec, Figs. 2,4; Abstract) comprising: operatively connecting a first battery (Brabec, Figs. 2-4, Element 95 of 80; Paras. [0043] and [0049]) with an electrical load (Brabec, Fig 1. Element 55; Para. [0049]), subsequently operatively connecting a second battery (Brabec, Figs. 2-4, Element 100 of 80; Paras. [0043] and [0049]) with the electrical load (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated) and operatively connecting the second battery in communication with the first battery (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated); operatively connecting a boost controller (Brabec, Fig. 2, Element 300; Para. [0055]) in operative communication with the first battery and the second battery (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated); operatively connecting an inductor (Brabec, Fig. 2, Element “L”; Para. [0054]) in communication with the boost controller (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated, via switches A-D), the first battery (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated, via switch A or B), a ground (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated, via switch B or D) and the second battery (Brabec, Fig. 2; As illustrated, via switch C or D), whereby the inductor is connected between the first battery and the ground for a predetermined time to obtain a predetermined inductor current (Brabec, Fig. 3; Paras. [0058] - [0059], PWM control to set “Iref” and “Vref” according to sensed “Isense” and “VsenseO1”), configuring the boost controller to pull a first battery current from the first battery and drive the first battery current into the second battery responsive to the predetermined inductor current (Brabec, Paras. [0054] and [0059]), connecting the inductor to the second battery responsive to the inductor obtaining the predetermined inductor current (Brabec, Para. [0059] . Where the inductor current is sensed by “R” resistor in Fig. 3), whereby the inductor is reconnected between the first battery and the ground before the inductor current reaches zero (Brabec, Paras. [0054] and [0059]), and configuring the boost controller to pull the first battery current from the first battery until the first battery voltage reaches a target voltage (Brabec, Paras. [0054] and [0059], “Vref”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, The teaching of the Brabec reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 and 10 respectively. Furthermore, Brabec teaches wherein the first battery is activated and connected to the electrical load before the second battery is activated and connected to the electrical load (Brabec, Fig. 5, Elements 210a-210c; Paras. [0053] – [0054], via the Enable circuitry.).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, The teaching of the Brabec reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 and 10 respectively. Furthermore, Brabec teaches wherein the boost controller includes an inner loop, the inner loop being configured to control the first battery current (Brabec, Fig. 3; Para. [0059], PWM control to set “Iref” according to sensed “Isense”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, The teaching of the Brabec reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 4/1 and 13/10 respectively. Furthermore, Brabec teaches wherein the inner loop is configured to measure a loop error and apply one of a full voltage or no voltage for a predetermined period of time (Brabec, Fig. 3; Para. [0059]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, The teaching of the Brabec reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 and 10 respectively. Furthermore, Brabec teaches wherein the boost controller includes an outer loop; the outer loop being configured to control the first battery voltage (Brabec, Fig. 3; Para. [0059], PWM control to set “Vref” according to sensed “VsenseO1”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, The teaching of the Brabec reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 and 10 respectively. Furthermore, Brabec teaches wherein the boost controller is configured to transfer a charge from the first battery to the second battery, wherein the first battery is offline and the second battery is online (Brabec, Para. [0054] – [0058]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, The teaching of the Brabec reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 and 10 respectively. Furthermore, Brabec teaches wherein the boost controller is configured to measure battery impedance (Brabec, Para. [0059]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, The teaching of the Brabec reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 and 10 respectively. Furthermore, Brabec teaches wherein the boost controller is configured to determine an online battery resistance responsive to: a measurement of the online battery voltage when the inductor is connected to the online battery; and a measurement of the online battery voltage when the inductor is disconnected from the online battery (Brabec, Para. [0059]).
Regarding Claim 19, The teaching of the Brabec reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 10. Furthermore, Brabec teaches further comprising: controlling a first power switch with the boost controller; and controlling a second power switch with the boost controller (Brabec, Fig. 4, Element 300; Para. [0060]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brabec U.S. PGPub 2011/0025125 A1 (hereinafter Brabec) as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of Im et al. U.S. PGPub 2022/0190358 A1 (hereinafter Im).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, The teaching of the Brabec reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 and 10 respectively, but does not teach the battery being thermal type.
Im, however, teaches wherein the first battery is a thermal battery and the second battery is a thermal battery (Im, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Brabec is silent as to using thermal batteries for the batteries of the converter, Brabec would inherently incorporate some type of conventional battery types commonly understood in the art. The thermal batteries taught by Im, for providing long shelf life batteries, teaches one of the many conventional battery types utilized in the art for providing power to an electrical load. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional battery types, such as the one taught by Im, to provide long shelf life within the battery pack of Brabec.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for allowance of the claim is the inclusion of a second boost controller controlling a separate function of the battery staging system.
Regarding Claim 20: Though the prior art discloses a battery staging system comprising a first battery in operative communication with an electrical load; a second battery in operative communication with the electrical load and in operative communication with the first battery; a first boost controller in operative communication with the first battery and in operative communication with the second battery; a first inductor in operative communication with the first boost controller, the first battery, a ground and the second battery; whereby the first inductor is connected between the first battery and the ground for a predetermined time to obtain a first predetermined inductor current; the first boost controller is configured to pull a first battery current from the first battery and drive the first battery current into the second battery responsive to the first predetermined inductor current; the first inductor being connected to the second battery responsive to the first inductor obtaining the predetermined inductor current; whereby the first inductor is reconnected between the first battery and the ground before the first inductor current falls below zero; and the first boost controller configured to pull the first battery current from the first battery until the first battery voltage reaches a target voltage, it fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations of claim 20, and further including the combination of:
a second boost controller in operative communication with the second battery and in operative communication with an nth battery;
a second inductor in operative communication with the second boost controller, the second battery, a ground and the nth battery; whereby the second inductor is connected between the second battery and the ground for a predetermined time to obtain a second predetermined inductor current;
the second boost controller is configured to pull a second battery current from the second battery and drive the second battery current into an nth battery responsive to the second predetermined inductor current;
the second inductor being connected to the nth battery responsive to the second inductor obtaining the second predetermined inductor current; whereby the second inductor is reconnected between the second battery and the ground before the second inductor current falls below zero; and
the second boost controller configured to pull the second battery current from the second battery until the second battery voltage reaches a target voltage.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12 , filed April 29, 2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-4 , filed April 29, 2026, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 4-6 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. S 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments (35 USC § 112)
Applicant argues the test for determining compliance with the written description requirement is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor has possession at the time of the later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the claimed language. The content of the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance with the written description requirement. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Applicant further argues, The specification explicitly teaches the claim elements and their use in the battery staging system at least at [0043]-[0046]. At [0043] … [0044] … [0045] … [0046] … (edited by examiner to eliminate redundancy of repeating these specification paragraphs word for word)
Examiner’s Response (35 USC § 112)
After a thorough analysis of the disclosure of the application and applicant’s remarks of April 29, 2026, the examiner is left with the same conclusion as made during the first Office action. In other words, the claim language of claims 4-6 and 13-15 is not explicitly taught in the specification for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand whether or not the applicant had possession of the limitations being claimed.
Applicant merely states the specification teaches the claim elements, then repeats paragraphs [0043] – [0046] in the arguments verbatim without any additional clarification or explanation, leaving the examiner to come to the same conclusion as previously determined.
Applicant, in the remarks, also states “The content of the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance with the written description requirement.” of which the examiner does not agree is accomplished by the drawings (see explanation below).
Refer below to annotated Fig. 1 of the instant application. Both the claimed “inner loop 68” and “outer loop 70” are merely octagon shaped boxes with element numbers within the octagon shape, both of which are illustrated as within a rectangular box labeled 26. Even with the description of paragraphs [0043] – [0046] which was simply repeated in applicants’ arguments with no supplemental information to help one understand what is being claimed by the terms “inner loop” and “outer loop”, the reader is left wondering if the claimed “inner loop” and “outer loop”
PNG
media_image1.png
630
986
media_image1.png
Greyscale
are parts of a software program or some type of hardware circuitry. More definition is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. S 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments (35 USC § 102)
Applicant argues, the Brabec reference fails to disclose A battery staging system … (remainder of claim 1 as repeated in applicant’s arguments has been deleted from the arguments in the interest of brevity since it is a word for word repeat of claim 1), as claimed in claim 1. Brabec also fails to disclose each and every claimed element in claim 10.
Brabec merely teaches at [0053] … At [0054] … (texts of referenced paragraphs deleted in the interest of brevity since it is a word for word of the reference)
Applicant continues to argue, one of ordinary skill in the art upon reading Brabec would understand that Brabec fails to disclose a boost controller being configured to pull a first battery current from the first battery and drive the first battery current into the second battery responsive to a predetermined inductor current, as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art upon reading Brabec would understand that Brabec fails to disclose the inductor being connected to the second battery responsive to the inductor obtaining the predetermined inductor current; whereby the inductor is reconnected between the first battery and the ground before the inductor current reaches zero, as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art upon reading Brabec would understand that Brabec fails to disclose the boost controller being configured to pull the first battery current from the first battery until the first battery voltage reaches a target voltage, as claimed.
The Office Action includes the erroneous assertion
that Brabec at [0053]-[0054] discloses the claim elements of claims 3 and 12.
One of ordinary skill in the art upon reading Brabec at [0053]-[0054] can clearly understand that there is no mention of the first battery is activated and connected to the electrical load before the second battery is activated and connected to the electrical load.
There is no disclosure in Brabec of the PWM control being configured to drive a first battery current into a second battery in response to a predetermined inductor current. The Office Action includes the assertion that this feature is disclosed by paragraph [0059].
However, [0059] of Brabec merely describes that the output of current-sensing is fed into PWM control, and that a set current is used to permit setting of particular voltage and current levels for charging and discharging the particular battery that is connected to the circuit. In other words, [0059] merely discloses setting a current level for charging/discharging of a first or second battery. This paragraph does not disclose using a predetermined inductor current to initiate the pulling of current from a first battery to a second battery, as required by claim 1.
The Office Action also alleges that the features the inductor being connected to the second battery responsive to the inductor obtaining the predetermined inductor current; whereby the inductor is reconnected between the first battery and the ground before the inductor current reaches zero are disclosed by [0059].
However, as explained above, [0059] only discloses setting a current level for charging/discharging a battery. Brabec does not disclose reconnecting an inductor between the first battery and ground before the inductor current reaches a predetermined value, let alone reconnecting it before the inductor current reaches zero. This feature is not disclosed at all by Brabec.
Additionally, [0059] describes setting a particular voltage for charging and discharging a particular battery. In other words, [0059] describes setting the fixed PWM voltage that is used to charge/discharge a particular battery. It does not describe using a target voltage to determine when to stop pulling a first battery current from the first battery, as required by claim 1. Moreover, the Brabec system as disclosed in [0053]-[0054] explicitly discloses the use of the first power source 40 (alternator) second power source 90 (plug into grid power, fuel cell, solar, wind) as options for charging the second plurality of batteries.
The Brabec electrical systems are interconnected and employ power from all sources.
Examiner’s Response (35 USC § 102)
The examiner believes the boost controller of Brabec, as explained in the disclosure, i.e. paragraph [0058], performs the function of the claimed boost controller, and applicant’s statements that Brabec fails to disclose the claim limitations is merely a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguish them from the Brabec reference.
Brabec clearly teaches the controller configured to take current from one of the two batteries to charge the inductor by controlling the switches of the booster, then controlling the switches of the booster to discharge the current from the inductor to drive current into the other battery, i.e. bi-directional. Paragraph [0006] clearly states Brabec’s “bi-directional converter can include a current sensor associated with the inductor…”. Brabec clearly teaches the operation of the PWM control, i.e. converter controller, operates the switches A, B, C and D based on the voltage of the batteries and the current of the inductor.
Brabec adjusts the bi-directional flow of energy between the batteries based on “setting of particular voltage and current levels” as clearly stated in paragraph [0059], which can include the set of zero current.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. S 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments (35 USC § 103)
Applicant argues, the combination of Brabec and Im references fails to teach or suggest each and every claimed element as claimed in claim 1 and 10.
The Office Action includes the admissions that the Brabec reference fails to teach the battery being thermal type.
The Office Action turns to the Im reference in the attempt to remedy the defects of Brabec. However, the Im reference fails to cure the deficiency of Brabec regarding the independent claims 1 and 10.
Since the combination of references fails to disclose each and every claimed element, as claimed, then there is no prima facie case of obviousness. Withdrawal of the obviousness rejection is respectfully requested.
The claim elements define a method of providing
sequential firing of thermal batteries extending available battery power as well as allowing for offline battery management without the unwanted heat loads in the battery staging electronics package.
A skilled person, equipped with Brabec and the
abovementioned technical problem, would not have arrived at the solution to this problem that is taught by claim 1. This is at least because the apparatus of Brabec does not use thermal batteries, and so does not have to consider the power extending mechanisms of claim 1 that are designed to improve such batteries.
Furthermore, Brabec is entirely silent regarding the claimed features as laid out above. Thus, Brabec provides no indication of how the method that it describes could be adapted so as to incorporate this feature. As such a skilled person, starting from Brabec would not have received sufficient teaching from Brabec to reconfigure the system of that reference so that it performed in the same manner as the system of claim 1.
Examiner’s Response (35 USC § 103)
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
As stated in the motivation to combine the references in the rejection above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Brabec is silent as to using thermal batteries for the batteries of the converter, Brabec would inherently incorporate some type of conventional battery types commonly understood in the art. The thermal batteries taught by Im, for providing long shelf life batteries, teaches one of the many conventional battery types utilized in the art for providing power to an electrical load. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional battery types, such as the one taught by Im, to provide long shelf life within the battery pack of Brabec.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
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.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights