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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yanagizawa, in view of Feuerstack, does not teach obtaining a voltage, or on-time, margin nor does it teach the comparison of the margin with the output voltage, or delay time, of a battery module to determine forcibly disconnecting the batteries. Examiner concedes that the prior art of record does not teach this specific function for determining forcibly disconnecting the batteries, however, as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 2 below, a functionally equivalent system is taught by the prior art.
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 1-20 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites new matter in the recitation “obtain a voltage margin of the battery module”. The specification describes the voltage margin, in ¶0092, as being calculated from a difference between a total voltage of the battery module group/string and the voltage command value. This would be understood to mean the voltage margin is for the battery module group/string and not an individual battery module.
Claim 2 recites new matter in the recitation “obtain an on-time margin of the battery module”. The specification describes the on-time margin, in ¶0084, as being calculated from a difference between a maximum on-time of the battery module group/string and the on-time command value. This would be understood to mean the on-time margin is for the battery module group/string and not an individual battery module.
Claims 3-20 depend from either claim 1 or claim 2 and therefore inherit their deficiencies.
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 1-20 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
What are the values which are used to determine the voltage margin, or said differently, the use of the term “margin” indicates a difference between two values but the claim does not explain what values are used to determine the difference. The margin could be a difference between any two battery module voltages, a single battery module voltage and the total voltage of the battery module group, or between the total voltage of the battery module group and a desired output voltage. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this to read as “obtain a voltage margin between a maximum voltage of the batteries that are connectable in the series and a voltage command value”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
What are the values which are used to determine the on-time margin, or said differently, the use of the term “margin” indicates a difference between two values but the claim does not explain what values are used to determine the difference. The margin could be a difference between any two battery module delay times, a single battery module delay time and the maximum allowance on-time of the battery module group, or between the maximum allowance on-time of the battery module group and an on-time command. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this to read as “obtain an on-time margin between a maximum allowance on-time of the batteries that are connectable in the series and an on-time command”.
Claims 3-20 depend from either claim 1 or claim 2 and therefore inherit their deficiencies.
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 power supply system is configured to:
obtain the number of batteries (¶0092: Npass) included in the battery modules which are forcibly disconnectable from the series 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
forcibly disconnect the obtained number of the batteries from the series by the forcible disconnecting unit (¶0093: isolating the battery modules).
Yanagizawa fails to explicitly teach the power supply system using a plurality of sets of battery module groups,
obtaining a voltage margin between a maximum voltage of the batteries that are connectable in the series and a voltage command value, 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 power supply system is configured to:
obtain the number of batteries (¶0092: Npass) included in the battery modules which are forcibly disconnectable from the series according to a voltage command value indicating a voltage to be output (¶0092: Vout), and
forcibly disconnect the obtained number of the batteries from the series by the forcible disconnecting unit (¶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 power supply system 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, perform a process of forcibly disconnecting the obtained number of the batteries from the series by the forcible disconnecting unit (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 power supply system is configured to, during discharging (S14), perform a process of forcibly disconnecting (S16) the obtained number of the batteries from the series by the forcible disconnecting unit 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 power supply system is configured to, during charging (S24), perform a process of forcibly disconnecting (S26) the obtained number of the batteries from the series by the forcible disconnecting unit 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 power supply system 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 power supply system 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, perform a process of forcibly disconnecting the obtained number of the batteries from the series by the forcible disconnecting unit (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 power supply system is configured to, during discharging (S14), perform a process of forcibly disconnecting (S16) the obtained number of the batteries from the series by the forcible disconnecting unit 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 power supply system is configured to, during charging (S24), perform a process of forcibly disconnecting (S26) the obtained number of the batteries from the series by the forcible disconnecting unit 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 power supply system 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 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 depends from either claim 11 or claim 12 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qi et al. (USPGPN 2022/0140751) teaches a system for DC-to-AC conversion controlling duty cycles of switches.
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 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