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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that while Group I is patentably distinct, the search of related fields presents no burden to the patent office which searching the field related to Group II. This is not found persuasive because the field of search of each group is different, e.g., searching for a device (vanadium battery SOC balancing system) requires searching in different classes/subclasses than searching for the method (method for controlling a vanadium battery SOC balancing structure); searching for the method requires employing different search queries than searching for the product, etc. and the prior art applicable to one invention, e.g., prior art applicable to the product but produced by a different method, would not likely be applicable to another invention, i.e., the method.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/22/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application, of clams 1-7 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 8-16 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 1, it is suggested to amend “SOC balancing system structure” to - -state of charge (SOC) balancing system structure- -.
In claim 8, lines 9-10, it is suggested to amend “all vanadium battery modules” to - -the plurality of vanadium battery modules- - to conform to prior recitation.
In claim 14, line 3, the sentence is missing a period. It should read - -a resistance threshold value.- -
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8, line 3 recites the limitation “a plurality of vanadium battery modules”. Further in claim 8, line 12, the limitation “a plurality of vanadium battery modules” is also recited. As such, it is no clear if the recitation “a plurality of vanadium battery modules” in line 12 corresponds to the same battery modules as in line 3 or different ones. It is recommended that once “an element” is given antecedent basis, it is then referred to as “the [element]”. Clarification or amendment to the claim is required.
Regarding dependent claims 9-16, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underwood et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0226239).
Regarding claim 8, Underwood teaches a method for controlling a vanadium battery SOC balancing system structure (i.e., method of balancing the SOC of a plurality of flow batteries electrolytes) (paragraph [0001], [0006]), the method comprising:
obtaining an SOC value of each of a plurality of vanadium battery modules (i.e., the controller monitors the SOC of the electrolytes of the stack) (paragraph [0051]), wherein each vanadium battery module of the plurality of vanadium battery modules comprises a positive electrode electrolyte tank and a negative electrode electrolyte tank (i.e., the stacks are paired with electrolyte tanks) (paragraph [0042]);
calculating an SOC difference according to the SOC values of any two vanadium battery modules (i.e., controller detect a more than 5% difference in the SOC of the electrolytes for the respective stacks) (paragraph [0046], [0051]);
determining whether the SOC difference exceeds a predetermined value (i.e., when the SOC of the electrolytes from different tanks exceeds a threshold, typically 5%) (paragraph [0051]), and if so, outputting a stop signal, the stop signal being configured to control all vanadium battery modules to stop charging and discharging, and if not, obtaining charging and discharging states (i.e., the controller alters the mode of charging or discharging via the inverter charger)(paragraph [0051]) (i.e., switch is open, no current flows…switch is closed, current passes) (paragraphs [0053]-[0058]);
when a plurality of vanadium battery modules are in the charging state, determining whether the SOC values of the plurality of vanadium battery modules exceed a threshold, if so, outputting an off signal (i.e., when the difference in SOC threshold is detected during charging…no current flows) (paragraph [0059]-[0060]), and if not, determining whether the SOC difference between any two vanadium battery modules of the plurality of vanadium battery modules is less than a difference threshold, if so, outputting the off signal, and if not, outputting an on signal (i.e., they will remain so until the difference in SOC threshold exceeded again and the same adjustment to be made again) (paragraph [0060]-[0065]); and
when the plurality of vanadium battery modules are in the discharging state, determining whether the SOC difference between any two vanadium battery modules of the plurality of vanadium battery modules is less than the difference threshold (i.e., during discharge for detection of the SOC being less charged by the 5% threshold than those stacks) (paragraph [0052]-[0053]); if so, outputting the off signal, and if not, outputting the on signal (i.e., switch is open, no current flows…switch is closed, current passes) (paragraph [0053]).
While the specifics of terms of “danger threshold” is not explicitly articulated, a threshold limit on SOC difference is taught (paragraph [0059]-[0065]). One of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to define different thresholds for charging and discharging in order to predictably optimize performance and avoid over-charge/discharge risks or to improve accuracy and safety. Threshold parameter tunning for different operating modes is a routine optimization within battery management systems.
Regarding claim 9, Underwood teaches wherein the predetermined value is any value within 5% (paragraph [0053]) which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Underwood teaches as indicated above the specifics of terms of “danger threshold” is not explicitly articulated in particular, any value within 30% to 80%. However, Underwood teaches triggering control when the difference in SOC exceeds about 5% (paragraph [0048]-[0060]). It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to apply a tighter control threshold, such as 2%, to predictably achieve a more precise balance or improved energy efficiency. The selection of a numeric limit for SOC balancing is a result effective variable, since varying the threshold predictably affects balancing response and battery lifetime (paragraph [0048]-[0060]). Optimizing or adjusting these ranges within known reasonable limits would constitute routine experimentation yielding predicable results.
Regarding claim 11, Underwood teaches the difference threshold is 5% (paragraph [0046]). The only deficiency is that Underwood discloses 5% difference, while the present claims require 2% difference. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed difference and that taught by Underwood are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between a 5% difference disclosed by Underwood and the amount disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the 2% difference disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Underwood, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. A difference threshold of 2% is merely a narrower, more precise version of the disclosed 5% difference, and adjusting that numeric threshold to optimize performance is an obvious variation yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Underwood teaches each vanadium battery module of the plurality of vanadium battery modules further comprises a plurality of parallel cell stacks connected in series (paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, Underwood teaches each vanadium battery module of the plurality of vanadium battery modules further comprises a balance pipeline (i.e., pipework) connecting the positive electrolyte tank and the negative electrolyte tank (paragraph [0002], [0042]) and that includes a controllable switch configured to assume an on state and an off state in response to the on signal and off signal (paragraph [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 14, Underwood teaches the balance pipeline but does not explicitly articulate the balance pipeline has a resistance value not less than a resistance threshold value. Underwood teaches electrolyte distribution in the pipeline and SOC balance (paragraph [0050]-[0058]). While the resistance value for the pipeline is not explicitly articulated, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pipeline must be designed to have a low electrical resistance to enable efficient charge transfer between connected modules, minimize voltage drop, and reduce power loss during balancing. It would have been obvious to design such a balance pipeline with a resistance less than a difference threshold value to ensure proper current flow and responsiveness of the balancing operation disclosed in Underwood.
Regarding claim 15, Underwood teaches the method as described above in claim 8. As to the limitation “the step of obtaining the SOC value of each of the plurality of vanadium battery modules is performed by an SOC detection module; the step of obtaining charging and discharging states is performed by a state detection module; the step of determining whether the SOC difference exceeds a predetermined value is performed by a control module; and the SOC detection module, state detection module, and control module are implemented via an energy management system (EMS) controller”, Underwood teaches controller, switches, measuring devices and comparing means. (paragraph [0015]-[0020]). These components inherently perform the recited functions of the SOC detection module, state detection module, and control module, all within the scope of an energy management system environment. It would be apparent to describe or implement these modules as separate functional units within the EMS controller since this is a conventional control architecture for battery systems to modularize detection and control tasks.
Regarding claim 16, Underwood teaches the method as described above in claim 8 and 15 but is silent with regards to the specifics of the processing unit is connected to the SOC detection module, and configured to calculate and output the SOC difference, and wherein the control unit is separately connected to the state detection module and the processing unit, and is configured for outputting the stop signal, the on signal, and the off signal. However, Underwood already performs SOC calculation, comparison to thresholds, and signal output to switches (paragraph [0050]-[0058]). The claim merely divide these tasks into separate submodules, which is a routine implementation detail in control system design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the control functions of Underwood using a processing unit (for computational and decision-making tasks) and a control unit (for signal execution/output) to improve system modularity and signal response – a predictable variation in line with standards energy management system architectures.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, MILTON I. CANO can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723