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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohkawa et al. (US 2019/0067954A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ohkawa discloses a system (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-11) comprising:
at least one system component associated with a power load (vehicle [0027]);
a battery group comprising a plurality of battery packs connected in at least one series connection (battery system composed of a plurality of unit cells connected in series [0029]-[0030], [0032]); and
control circuitry (controller [0042]).
Further regarding claim 1 reciting “…monitor a voltage level of each battery pack in the battery group during a discharge to the power load of the at least one system component; determine a plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group, each discharge capability corresponding to a different battery pack in the battery group; determine whether the power load of the at least one system component exceeds a lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group; and in response to a determination that the power load of the at least one system component exceeds the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group, reduce the power load of the at least one system component below the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim limitations of product claims are granted patentable weight based on their final structure and not by the method of which it was made or any intermediate products thereof. Product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114). Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (see MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this instance, functional limitations do not impart any structure to the instant claim and are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
In this instance, Ohkawa discloses control circuitry to: monitor a voltage level of each battery pack in the battery group during a discharge to the power load of the at least one system component (voltage detection circuit [0042]);
determine a plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group, each discharge capability corresponding to a different battery pack in the battery group (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]);
determine whether the power load of the at least one system component exceeds a lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group (Since the currents flowing through all the series-connected unit cells 111 are the same, by adopting the smallest unit cell allowable discharge current 153 among the unit cells 111 as the pre-correction allowable discharge current 155, discharge control can be realized in which voltages of all the unit cells 111 do not exceed Vmin. [0063]); and
in response to a determination that the power load of the at least one system component exceeds the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group, reduce the power load of the at least one system component below the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group (allowable discharge current correction [0062]-[0063], [0074]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 2, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 2 reciting “…determine voltage levels of the plurality of battery packs during charging of the battery group; determine a plurality of charging capabilities of the battery group based on the determined voltage levels; determine whether a charging level of the battery group exceeds a lowest charging capability of the plurality of charging capabilities of the battery group; and in response to a determination that the charging level of the battery group exceeds the lowest charging capability of the plurality of charging capabilities of the battery group, reduce the charging level of the battery group below the lowest charging capability of the plurality of charging capabilities of the battery group”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim limitations of product claims are granted patentable weight based on their final structure and not by the method of which it was made or any intermediate products thereof. Product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114). Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (see MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this instance, functional limitations do not impart any structure to the instant claim and are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
In this instance, Ohkawa discloses determine voltage levels of the plurality of battery packs during charging of the battery group (voltage detector [0029]-[0031]);
determine a plurality of charging capabilities of the battery group based on the determined voltage levels (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]);
determine whether a charging level of the battery group exceeds a lowest charging capability of the plurality of charging capabilities of the battery group (Since the currents flowing through all the series-connected unit cells 111 are the same, by adopting the smallest unit cell allowable discharge current 153 among the unit cells 111 as the pre-correction allowable discharge current 155, discharge control can be realized in which voltages of all the unit cells 111 do not exceed Vmin. [0063]); and
in response to a determination that the charging level of the battery group exceeds the lowest charging capability of the plurality of charging capabilities of the battery group, reduce the charging level of the battery group below the lowest charging capability of the plurality of charging capabilities of the battery group (allowable discharge current correction [0062]-[0063], [0074]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 4, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses the plurality of battery packs of the battery group are mounted in a multi-battery carrier, and wherein the multi-battery carrier is mounted in a battery bay of the system (vehicle system mounted with battery system [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses the multi-battery carrier comprises a carrier power rail to connect the plurality of battery packs in the at least one series connection (electrically connected in series [0032], [0034]), and wherein the multi-battery carrier further comprises carrier control circuitry to determine the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of battery packs (cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs comprises module control circuitry (controller [0042]) to: monitor the voltage level of the battery pack (voltage detection circuit [0042]); determine whether a discharge voltage of the battery pack is lower than a predefined minimum discharge voltage (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]).
Further regarding claim 6 reciting “…in response to a determination that the discharge voltage of the battery pack is lower than the predefined minimum discharge voltage, shut down the battery pack”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim limitations of product claims are granted patentable weight based on their final structure and not by the method of which it was made or any intermediate products thereof. Product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114). Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (see MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this instance, functional limitations do not impart any structure to the instant claim and are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
In this instance, the controller of Ohkawa is considered capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 7, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses the module control circuitry further to determine an impedance of the battery pack ([0037]-[0038], [0047], [0052]-[0060]), and wherein the at least one system component comprises at least one selected from a processor device, a memory device, a storage device, a networking device, a display device, and a radio device (storage unit [0029], [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses the module control circuitry further to calculate the discharge capability of the battery pack based on: the monitored voltage level of the battery pack; the predefined minimum discharge voltage; and the impedance of the battery pack (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038], [0047], [0052]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Ohkawa discloses a computing device (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-11) comprising:
a battery group comprising a plurality of battery packs connected in at least one series connection (battery system composed of a plurality of unit cells connected in series [0029]-[0030], [0032]);
a processor (controller [0029], [0037]);
a memory (storage unit [0029], [0037]); and
a machine-readable storage storing instructions (controller [0042]).
Further regarding claim 9 reciting “…the instructions executable by the processor to: monitor a voltage level of each battery pack in the battery group during a discharge to a power load; determine a plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group, each discharge capability corresponding to a different battery pack in the battery group; determine a lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group; and in response to a determination that the power load exceeds the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group, reduce the power load to less than the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim limitations of product claims are granted patentable weight based on their final structure and not by the method of which it was made or any intermediate products thereof. Product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114). Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (see MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this instance, functional limitations do not impart any structure to the instant claim and are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
In this instance, Ohkawa discloses control circuitry to: monitor a voltage level of each battery pack in the battery group during a discharge to a power load (voltage detection circuit [0042]);
determine a plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group, each discharge capability corresponding to a different battery pack in the battery group (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]);
determine a lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group (Since the currents flowing through all the series-connected unit cells 111 are the same, by adopting the smallest unit cell allowable discharge current 153 among the unit cells 111 as the pre-correction allowable discharge current 155, discharge control can be realized in which voltages of all the unit cells 111 do not exceed Vmin. [0063]); and
in response to a determination that the power load exceeds the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group, reduce the power load to less than the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group (allowable discharge current correction [0062]-[0063], [0074]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 10 Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 10 reciting “…the instructions executable by the processor to: during charging of the battery group, determine a charging capability of each battery pack in the battery group; and in response to a determination that a charging level of the battery group exceeds a lowest charging capability of the plurality of battery packs in the battery group, reduce the charging level of the battery group to less than the lowest charging capability”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim limitations of product claims are granted patentable weight based on their final structure and not by the method of which it was made or any intermediate products thereof. Product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114). Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (see MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this instance, functional limitations do not impart any structure to the instant claim and are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
In this instance, Ohkawa discloses the instructions executable by the processor to: during charging of the battery group, determine a charging capability of each battery pack in the battery group (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]); and in response to a determination that a charging level of the battery group exceeds a lowest charging capability of the plurality of battery packs in the battery group, reduce the charging level of the battery group to less than the lowest charging capability (allowable discharge current correction [0062]-[0063], [0074]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 12, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses the plurality of battery packs of the battery group are mounted in a multi-battery carrier, and wherein the multi-battery carrier is mounted in a battery bay of the system (vehicle system mounted with battery system [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses the multi-battery carrier comprises a carrier power rail to connect the plurality of battery packs in the at least one series connection (electrically connected in series [0032], [0034]), and wherein the multi-battery carrier further comprises carrier control circuitry to determine the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of battery packs (cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs comprises module control circuitry to: determine an impedance of the battery pack ([0037]-[0038], [0047], [0052]-[0060]); determine the voltage level of the battery pack (voltage detection circuit [0042]); determine whether a discharge voltage of the battery pack is lower than a predefined minimum discharge voltage (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]).
Further regarding claim 14 reciting “…in response to a determination that the discharge voltage of the battery pack is lower than the predefined minimum discharge voltage, shut down the battery pack”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim limitations of product claims are granted patentable weight based on their final structure and not by the method of which it was made or any intermediate products thereof. Product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114). Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (see MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this instance, functional limitations do not impart any structure to the instant claim and are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
In this instance, the controller of Ohkawa is considered capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 15, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses the module control circuitry further to calculate the discharge capability of the battery pack based on: the monitored voltage level of the battery pack; the predefined minimum discharge voltage; and the impedance of the battery pack (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038], [0047], [0052]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 16, Ohkawa discloses a multi-battery carrier (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-11) comprising:
an enclosure to be inserted into a battery bay of a computing system (vehicle system mounted with battery system [0041]);
a carrier power rail to be electrically coupled to a plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier (battery system composed of a plurality of unit cells electrically connected in series [0029]-[0030], [0032], [0034]); and
control circuitry (controller [0042]).
Further regarding claim 16 reciting “…determine a discharge capability of each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier; determine whether a power load of the computing system exceeds a lowest discharge capability of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier; and in response to a determination that the power load of the computing system exceeds the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier, reduce the power load of the computing system below the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim limitations of product claims are granted patentable weight based on their final structure and not by the method of which it was made or any intermediate products thereof. Product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114). Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (see MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this instance, functional limitations do not impart any structure to the instant claim and are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
In this instance, Ohkawa discloses control circuitry to: monitor a voltage level of each battery pack in the battery group during a discharge to the power load of the at least one system component (voltage detection circuit [0042]);
determine a plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group, each discharge capability corresponding to a different battery pack in the battery group (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]);
determine whether the power load of the at least one system component exceeds a lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group (Since the currents flowing through all the series-connected unit cells 111 are the same, by adopting the smallest unit cell allowable discharge current 153 among the unit cells 111 as the pre-correction allowable discharge current 155, discharge control can be realized in which voltages of all the unit cells 111 do not exceed Vmin. [0063]); and
in response to a determination that the power load of the at least one system component exceeds the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group, reduce the power load of the at least one system component below the lowest discharge capability of the plurality of discharge capabilities of the battery group (allowable discharge current correction [0062]-[0063], [0074]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 17, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 17 reciting “…the control circuitry to: monitor the voltage level of each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier; determine a charging capability of each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier; determine whether a charging level of the multi-battery carrier exceeds a lowest charging capability of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier; and in response to a determination that the charging level of the multi-battery carrier exceeds the lowest charging capability of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier, reduce the charging level of the multi-battery carrier below the lowest charging capability of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim limitations of product claims are granted patentable weight based on their final structure and not by the method of which it was made or any intermediate products thereof. Product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114). Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (see MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this instance, functional limitations do not impart any structure to the instant claim and are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
In this instance, Ohkawa discloses the control circuitry to:
monitor the voltage level of each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier (voltage detection circuit [0042]);
determine a charging capability of each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]);
determine whether a charging level of the multi-battery carrier exceeds a lowest charging capability of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier (Since the currents flowing through all the series-connected unit cells 111 are the same, by adopting the smallest unit cell allowable discharge current 153 among the unit cells 111 as the pre-correction allowable discharge current 155, discharge control can be realized in which voltages of all the unit cells 111 do not exceed Vmin. [0063]); and
in response to a determination that the charging level of the multi-battery carrier exceeds the lowest charging capability of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier, reduce the charging level of the multi-battery carrier below the lowest charging capability of the plurality of battery packs mounted in the multi-battery carrier (allowable discharge current correction [0062]-[0063], [0074]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 19, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs comprises module control circuitry to: determine an impedance of the battery pack ([0037]-[0038], [0047], [0052]-[0060]); determine the voltage level of the battery pack (voltage detection circuit [0042]); determine whether a discharge voltage of the battery pack is lower than a predefined minimum discharge voltage (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038]).
Further regarding claim 14 reciting “…in response to a determination that the discharge voltage of the battery pack is lower than the predefined minimum discharge voltage, shut down the battery pack”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim limitations of product claims are granted patentable weight based on their final structure and not by the method of which it was made or any intermediate products thereof. Product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114). Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (see MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this instance, functional limitations do not impart any structure to the instant claim and are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
In this instance, the controller of Ohkawa is considered capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 20, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohkawa further discloses the module control circuitry further to calculate the discharge capability of the battery pack based on: the monitored voltage level of the battery pack; the predefined minimum discharge voltage; and the impedance of the battery pack (unit cell management unit 120 which monitors a state of the unit cells, battery pack controller 150 calculates to control SOC and a state of health (SOH) of one or more unit cells 111, chargeable/dischargeable current and electric power (hereinafter, the charging side is expressed as a positive value and the discharging side is expressed as a negative value), an abnormal state, and a charge/discharge amount [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0038], [0047], [0052]-[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.
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) 3, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkawa et al. (US 2019/0067954A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-17, 19-20 above, in view of EP2973935B1.
Regarding claim 3, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Ohkawa does not further disclose the control circuitry to: detect a change of use profile for the plurality of battery packs in a first configuration; in response to the detected change of use profile, reconfigure the plurality of battery packs into a second configuration; determine an updated lowest discharge capability for the plurality of battery packs in the second configuration; and reduce the power load of the at least one system component below the updated lowest discharge capability for the plurality of battery packs in the second configuration.
EP2973935B1 discloses an algorithm used to manage an energy module pack, wherein a master controller determines status of the internal energy storage devices, if the controller detects an over temperature, overvoltage or overcurrent, a fault condition will be signaled, and when the energy levels of all energy modules hit a low threshold, the controller continues running the application but with reduced performance ([0114]-[0115]).
Ohkawa and EP2973935B1 are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely system for battery control/management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ohkawa by employing a control method including battery balancing and employing reduced performance when energy levels of energy modules hit a low threshold because EP2973935B1 teaches allowing the current application to run, even at reduced performance, to allow the user to get back to a charging station.
Regarding claim 11, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Ohkawa does not further disclose the instructions executable by the processor to: detect a change of use profile for the plurality of battery packs in a first configuration; in response to the detected change of use profile, reconfigure the plurality of battery packs into a second configuration; determine a lowest discharge capability for the plurality of battery packs in the second configuration; and reduce the power load to less than the lowest discharge capability for the plurality of battery packs in the second configuration.
EP2973935B1 discloses an algorithm used to manage an energy module pack, wherein a master controller determines status of the internal energy storage devices, if the controller detects an over temperature, overvoltage or overcurrent, a fault condition will be signaled, and when the energy levels of all energy modules hit a low threshold, the controller continues running the application but with reduced performance ([0114]-[0115]).
Ohkawa and EP2973935B1 are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely system for battery control/management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ohkawa by employing a control method including battery balancing and employing reduced performance when energy levels of energy modules hit a low threshold because EP2973935B1 teaches allowing the current application to run, even at reduced performance, to allow the user to get back to a charging station.
Regarding claim 18, Ohkawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Ohkawa does not further disclose the control circuitry to: detect a change of use profile for the plurality of battery packs in a first configuration; in response to the detected change of use profile, reconfigure the plurality of battery packs into a second configuration; determine an updated lowest discharge capability for the plurality of battery packs in the second configuration; and reduce the power load of the at least one system component below the updated lowest discharge capability for the plurality of battery packs in the second configuration.
EP2973935B1 discloses an algorithm used to manage an energy module pack, wherein a master controller determines status of the internal energy storage devices, if the controller detects an over temperature, overvoltage or overcurrent, a fault condition will be signaled, and when the energy levels of all energy modules hit a low threshold, the controller continues running the application but with reduced performance ([0114]-[0115]).
Ohkawa and EP2973935B1 are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely system for battery control/management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ohkawa by employing a control method including battery balancing and employing reduced performance when energy levels of energy modules hit a low threshold because EP2973935B1 teaches allowing the current application to run, even at reduced performance, to allow the user to get back to a charging station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 4/15/2026
Prosecution Insights