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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding amended claims 1 & 2, that Yanagizawa does not disclose a two-stage control structure where a determination of a number of battery modules to be disconnected and a selection of which specific modules are targets are performed separately and then combined. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yanagizawa teaches a determination of a number of battery modules to be disconnected, as disclosed in the rejections presented in the previous office action, but also teaches a selection of which specific modules are targets (¶0065: a predetermined number of battery modules 102 can be selected in increasing order of the SOC). The Npass value is determined through Formula (5) to find the number of battery modules which can be isolated (¶0093) at a different time as the SOC determinations of the battery modules. The prior art disclosing the option of battery modules being selected in an increasing order would mean that all modules would require an SOC measurement to determine which one has the lowest SOC, then second lowest, etc. Therefore, the priority order of lowest SOC to highest SOC would need to be determined before any modules are isolated, and combined with the Npass module count when isolation is performed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) regarding Feuerstack have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagizawa et al. (USPGPN 2020/0136413), in view of Feuerstack et al. (USPGPN 2013/0241472).
Regarding Claim 1, Yanagizawa (Fig.1) teaches a power supply system (100) that uses a battery module group (modules 102a to 102n) including a plurality of battery modules (102a/102b/102n) with batteries (10) and makes the batteries in the battery modules to be connectable in series based on a gate drive signal from a controller (¶0008: battery modules are connected in series in accordance with a gate driving signal), the power supply system comprising:
a forcible disconnecting unit (22, 24, 16, & 18) configured to forcibly disconnect a battery in one of the plurality of battery modules from the series regardless of the gate drive signal (¶0008: disconnecting part for forcibly isolating the battery module, and therefore the battery, from the series connection regardless of the gate driving signal),
wherein the controller is configured to:
determine a priority order of battery modules to be forcibly disconnected based on states of charge of the batteries in the battery modules (¶0065: a predetermined number of battery modules can be selected in increasing order of the SOC, indicating a priority order of lowest to highest SOC is determined);
determine a number of battery modules (¶0092: Npass) to be forcibly disconnected according to a maximum voltage of the batteries (¶0092; Nmod multiplied by Vmod is the maximum voltage of the batteries in a case where Npass is zero) that are connectable in the series and a voltage command value indicating a voltage to be output (¶0092: Vout), and
control the forcible disconnecting unit to forcibly disconnect the battery modules corresponding to the determined number in accordance with the priority order (¶0093: isolating the battery modules).
Yanagizawa fails to explicitly teach the power supply system using a plurality of sets of battery module groups,
obtain a voltage margin defined by a difference between a maximum voltage of the batteries that are connectable in the series in the battery module group and a voltage command value indicating a voltage to be output for the battery module group, and
forcibly disconnect the obtained number of the batteries in a case where the voltage margin is equal to or less than an output voltage of the battery module.
However, Feuerstack (Fig1) teaches a power supply system using a plurality of sets (modules 4-11 to 4-1m, 4-21 to 4-2m, and 4-31 to 4-3m) of battery module groups (4-11 to 4-1m/4-21 to 4-2m/4-31 to 4-3m).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Yanagizawa with Feuerstack to have the power supply system use a plurality of sets of battery module groups. Doing so would allow for the power supply system to provide an AC voltage output for actuating an AC electric machine without the use of an inverter, as evidenced by Feuerstack (¶0010).
Yanagizawa, as modified, is different from the claimed invention in that Yanagizawa, as modified, teaches a system which generates a number of batteries to be forcibly bypassed through a formula which utilizes the desired output voltage, the avg module voltage, and the number of modules (Npass<Nmod-Vout/Vmod) whereas the claimed invention determines this number of batteries to be forcibly bypassed through a formula which utilizes a difference between the total voltage of the battery string and the desired output voltage, and battery module voltages (Vmargin=Vall-Vstr,com; Vmargin>Vctrg -> YES -> Vmargin=Vmargin-Vctrg). Although the formulas are different, they both utilize the number of battery modules, battery module voltage, and the desired output voltage, and they both provide the same result. Therefore, the prior art and the claim are functionally equivalent.
For the example, the values will be 3 modules each at 4V and the desired output voltage is 5V.
Npass < 3 – 6V/4V
Vmargin = 12V – 6V = 6V
Npass <3 – 1.5
6V > 4V -> YES -> Npass +1
Npass < 1.5
Vmargin = 6V – 4V = 2V
Npass = 1
2V > 4V -> NO (Npass = 1)
Regarding Claim 2, Yanagizawa (Fig.1) teaches a power supply system (100) that uses a battery module group (modules 102a to 102n) including a plurality of battery modules (102a/102b/102n) with batteries (10) and makes the batteries in the battery modules to be connectable in series based on a gate drive signal from a controller (¶0008: battery modules are connected in series in accordance with a gate driving signal), the power supply system comprising:
a forcible disconnecting unit (22, 24, 16, & 18) configured to forcibly disconnect a battery in one of the plurality of battery modules from the series regardless of the gate drive signal (¶0008: disconnecting part for forcibly isolating the battery module from the series connection regardless of the gate driving signal),
wherein the controller is configured to:
determine a priority order of battery modules to be forcibly disconnected based on states of charge of the batteries in the battery modules (¶0065: a predetermined number of battery modules can be selected in increasing order of the SOC, indicating a priority order of lowest to highest SOC is determined);
obtain a number of battery modules (¶0092: Npass) to be forcibly disconnected from the series according to a voltage command value indicating a voltage to be output (¶0092: Vout), and
control the forcible disconnecting unit to forcibly disconnect battery modules corresponding to the determined number in accordance with the priority order (¶0093: isolating the battery modules).
Yanagizawa fails to explicitly teach the power supply system using a plurality of sets of battery module groups, and obtaining the number of batteries which are forcibly disconnectable according to a maximum allowance on-time,
obtaining an on-time margin between a maximum allowance on-time of the batteries that are connectable in the series and an on-time command, and
forcibly disconnect the obtained number of the batteries in a case where the on-time margin is equal to or less than a delay time of the battery module.
However, Feuerstack (Fig1) teaches a power supply system using a plurality of sets (modules 4-11 to 4-1m, 4-21 to 4-2m, and 4-31 to 4-3m) of battery module groups (4-11 to 4-1m/4-21 to 4-2m/4-31 to 4-3m).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Yanagizawa with Feuerstack to have the power supply system use a plurality of sets of battery module groups. Doing so would allow for the power supply system to provide an AC voltage output for actuating an AC electric machine without the use of an inverter, as evidenced by Feuerstack (¶0010).
Yanagizawa, as modified, is different from the claimed invention in that Yanagizawa, as modified, teaches a system which generates a number of batteries to be forcibly bypassed through a formula which utilizes the desired output voltage, the avg module voltage, and the number of modules (Npass<Nmod-Vout/Vmod) whereas the claimed invention determines this number of batteries to be forcibly bypassed through a formula which utilizes a difference between the total voltage of the battery string and the desired output voltage, and battery module voltages (Vmargin=Vall-Vstr,com; Vmargin>Vctrg -> YES -> Vmargin=Vmargin-Vctrg). Although the formulas are different, they both utilize the number of battery modules, battery module voltage, and the desired output voltage, and they both provide the same result. Therefore, the prior art and the claim are functionally equivalent.
For the example, the values will be 3 modules each at 4V and the desired output voltage is 5V.
Npass < 3 – 6V/4V
Vmargin = 12V – 6V = 6V
Npass <3 – 1.5
6V > 4V -> YES -> Npass +1
Npass < 1.5
Vmargin = 6V – 4V = 2V
Npass = 1
2V > 4V -> NO (Npass = 1)
Furthermore, Yanagizawa teaches that a maximum allowance on-time (¶0047: on-time ratio) is calculated by dividing an output voltage (¶0047: output voltage of the power supply) by the maximum voltage of the batteries (¶0047: battery voltage of the battery module x the total number of the battery modules).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Yanagizawa to use the interchangeable variable of the maximum allowance on-time multiplied by the maximum voltage of the batteries, in place of the output voltage, to determine the number of batteries which are forcibly disconnectable. Doing so would provide a functionally equivalent equation for determining the Npass value, taught by Yanagizawa, in Formula 5 (¶0092).
Regarding Claim 3, Yanagizawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the controller is configured to, when there is a margin in an output voltage with respect to the maximum voltage of the batteries that are connectable in the series, control the forcible disconnecting unit to forcibly disconnect battery modules corresponding to the determined number in accordance with the priority order (Abstract: the power supply device limits the number of battery modules forcibly isolated in accordance with a target output voltage value; ¶0093: Formula 5 is satisfied as far as possible to reduce the margin between the Vout and Vmod x Nmod).
Regarding Claim 4, Yanagizawa (Fig.5), as modified, further teaches wherein the controller is configured to, during discharging (S14), control the forcible disconnecting unit to forcibly disconnect battery modules (S16) corresponding to the determined number in ascending order of state of charge (S12; ¶0065: battery modules can be selected in increasing order of the SOC).
Regarding Claim 5, Yanagizawa (Fig.6), as modified, further teaches wherein the controller is configured to, during charging (S24), control the forcible disconnecting unit to forcibly disconnect (S26) battery modules corresponding to the determined number in descending order of state of charge (S22; ¶0073: battery modules can be selected in decreasing order of the SOC).
Regarding Claim 6, Yanagizawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the controller is configured to make at least three sets of the battery module groups Y-connected and cause the battery module groups to respectively output alternating current voltages with a 120° phase difference (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above; Feuerstack’s power supply system provides an AC output to an electric machine, as shown in Fig.1:element 1, and the AC output disclosed would be well understood in the art to be three phases with phase differences of 120°. The battery module sets are connected in a Y formation, as shown in Fig.1: each set of battery modules is connected to a common bus “T-” and to separate phases 3-1/3-2/3-3 of the electric machine).
Regarding Claim 7, Yanagizawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the controller is configured to, when there is a margin in an output voltage with respect to a maximum voltage of the batteries that are connectable in the series, control the forcible disconnecting unit to forcibly disconnect battery modules corresponding to the determined number in accordance with the priority order (Abstract: the power supply device limits the number of battery modules forcibly isolated in accordance with a target output voltage value; ¶0093: Formula 5 is satisfied as far as possible to reduce the margin between the Vout and Vmod x Nmod).
Regarding Claim 8, Yanagizawa (Fig.5), as modified, further teaches wherein the controller is configured to, during discharging (S14), control the forcible disconnecting unit to forcibly disconnect (S16) battery modules corresponding to the determined number in ascending order of state of charge (S12; ¶0065: battery modules can be selected in increasing order of the SOC).
Regarding Claim 9, Yanagizawa (Fig.6), as modified, further teaches wherein the controller is configured to, during charging (S24), control the forcible disconnecting unit to forcibly disconnect (S26) battery modules corresponding to the determined number in descending order of state of charge (S22; ¶0073: battery modules can be selected in decreasing order of the SOC).
Regarding Claim 10, Yanagizawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the controller is configured to make at least three sets of the battery module groups Y-connected and cause the battery module groups to respectively output alternating current voltages with a 120° phase difference (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above; Feuerstack’s power supply system provides an AC output to an electric machine, as shown in Fig.1:element 1, and the AC output disclosed would be well understood in the art to be three phases with phase differences of 120°. The battery module sets are connected in a Y formation, as shown in Fig.1: each set of battery modules is connected to a common bus “T-” and to separate phases 3-1/3-2/3-3 of the electric machine).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 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 11 recites “wherein the controller is configured to calculate a duty ratio of the power supply system according to Equation (4) below, and the power supply system is configured to forcibly disconnect the obtained number of the batteries from the series by the forcible disconnecting unit in a case where the duty ratio is lower than a standard ratio”. The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or suggest this limitation in combination with all other limitations recited in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the controller is configured to calculate a duty ratio of the power supply system according to Equation (4) below, and the power supply system is configured to forcibly disconnect the obtained number of the batteries from the series by the forcible disconnecting unit in a case where the duty ratio is lower than a standard ratio”. The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or suggest this limitation in combination with all other limitations recited in the claim.
Claims 13-20 depend from either claim 11 or claim 12 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights