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 .
Examiner’s Note
The examiner reviewed the third-party submission filed 5/12/2025. While rejections for Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 under 102(a)(2) are possible, the proposed rejections for Claims 1-9 and 18-20 would not be rejectable under 102(a)(2) as an electronic controller was not inherent in Wang’s disclosure for Claim 10. As for Claims 16 and 17 demonstrated by the applicant, the examiner did not see the explicit support for the type of converters claimed. Therefore, the rejections of these other claims under Wang will be omitted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method steps of Claims 10-17 (Figures only show method steps of parent application) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because (a) Figs. [1A, 1B, 3, 5] lack clear symbols, text, or a legend to demonstrate the part number meaning;
(b) [205 of Fig. 2] and [410 & 415 of Fig. 4] are unclear compared to the other part numbers, so provide clear symbols, text, or a legend to demonstrate the part number meanings
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not contain language which correspond to the claim. Rather, the abstract corresponds to the claims of the parent application. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al (USPGPN 20190288534, with CN 111509804 A having priority [for Figs. 44 & 45 of Wang] before the effectively filed date of the instant application).
Independent Claim 10, Wang discloses a method of charging multiple battery packs (555) using a multi-bay battery pack charger (Figs. [21, 22, 44-47], ¶’s [118, 125, 233-238]), the multi-bay battery pack charger including a housing (Figs. [46, 47]), a first energy storage device bay disposed on a first surface of the housing, a second energy storage device bay disposed on a second surface of the housing,
PNG
media_image1.png
590
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a power input configured to provide power from an external power source to charging circuitry (charging device ¶’s [118, 119, 121, 122], where control component 549 of Figs. [21, 22] corresponds to the control component 572 in Fig. 44, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands), the method (Fig. 45) comprising:
selectively controlling a first switch that is provided on a first current path from the charging circuitry to the first energy storage device bay to enable charging of a first energy storage device (switches described to not be shown in ¶’s [233-235, esp. 233]);
selectively controlling a second switch that is provided on a second current path from the charging circuitry to the second energy storage device bay to enable charging of a second energy storage device (switches described to not be shown in ¶’s [233-235, esp. 234]);
providing charging current to one of the first energy storage device bay or the second energy storage device bay based on which of the first energy storage device or the second energy storage device has a lower state of charge (Fig. 45, when B2 charges alone, or when B2 & A2 charge together but not when C2 charges); and
PNG
media_image2.png
822
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
simultaneously providing charging current to both the first energy storage device bay and the second energy storage device bay when the state of charge of the first energy storage device is approximately equal to the state of charge of the second energy storage device (Fig. 45 when C2 charges together with B2 and A2, or when B2 and A2 charge but not when C2 charges).
PNG
media_image3.png
774
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claim 11, Wang discloses
PNG
media_image4.png
594
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claim 14, Wang discloses
PNG
media_image5.png
684
643
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claim 15, Wang discloses
PNG
media_image6.png
702
643
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (USPGPN 20190288534) in view of Park (USPGPN 20150194707), as evidenced by Lavell et al (USPN 4052656).
Independent Claim 1, Gao discloses a multi-bay battery pack charger (Figs. 1-9, element 200, packs [300, 302, 304]) comprising:
a housing (Figs. [1, 9] show the housing);
a first energy storage device bay disposed on a first surface of the housing (202), the first energy storage device bay configured to removably receive and electrically connect to a first energy storage device (302);
a second energy storage device bay disposed on a second surface of the housing (204), the second energy storage device bay configured to removably receive and electrically connect to a second energy storage device (304);
a power input configured to receive power from an external power source (230);
charging circuitry (205, see esp. Figs. [2-8]) coupled to the power input, the first energy storage device bay, and the second energy storage device bay, the charging circuitry configured to charge the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device using power received from the power input; and
an electronic controller ([208, 210, 212, 214, 216, 218]; performing methods of Figs. [10-12]) configured to:
selectively control a first switch (206 for 302’s path) that is provided on a first current path from the charging circuitry to the first energy storage device bay to enable charging of the first energy storage device (¶[37]),
selectively control a second switch (206 for 304’s path) that is provided on a second current path from the charging circuitry to the second energy storage device bay to enable charging of the second energy storage device (¶[37]),
provide charging current to at least one of the first energy storage device bay or the second energy storage device bay based on which of the first energy storage device or the second energy storage device has a lower state of charge (Fig. [10 s14] to Fig. 11], abstract, ¶’s [19-22, 39, 63-84, esp. 63-84], voltage is a measure of SOC), and
simultaneously provide charging current to both the first energy storage device bay and the second energy storage device bay when the state of charge of the first energy storage device is approximately equal to the state of charge of the second energy storage device (Fig. [10 s16] & [11 s16] to Fig. 12, abstract, ¶’s [19-22, 39, 63, 69, 75, 79, 84-95, esp. 39, 63, 84-95], voltage is a measure of SOC).
Gao fails to explicitly teach the SOC rather than the voltage is used for the determination of the charging mode.
Park teaches the SOC and the voltage are interchangeably used to determine a mode in charging a battery (¶’s [46, 69]), while teaching similar limitations to Gao where the mode to charge simultaneously is based on the SOC/voltage being substantially-identical/difference-between-the-two-being-less-than-a-threshold (¶’s [56-60, esp. 57, 59], see structure in Figs. [1, 2, 4, 5]). Official notice taken that SOC is easier to compare to voltage in a linear matter for a battery charge level, and as further evidenced by Lavell (Col 2 L63 to Col 3 L5) it is more reliable to prevent overcharging and other safety issue.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gao with Park to provide improved ease, reliability, and safety.
Independent Claim 10, Gao teaches a method (Figs. 10-12) of charging multiple battery packs (302, 304) using a multi-bay battery pack charger (Figs. 1-9, element 200), the multi-bay battery pack charger including
a housing (Figs. [1, 9] show the housing);
a first energy storage device bay disposed on a first surface of the housing (202),
a second energy storage device bay disposed on a second surface of the housing (204),
a power input (230) configured to provide power from an external power source to charging circuitry (205),
the method comprising:
selectively controlling a first switch (206 for 302’s path) that is provided on a first current path from the charging circuitry to the first energy storage device bay to enable charging of a first energy storage device (¶[37]);
selectively controlling a second switch (206 for 304’s path) that is provided on a second current path from the charging circuitry to the second energy storage device bay to enable charging of a second energy storage device (¶[37]);
providing charging current to one of the first energy storage device bay or the second energy storage device bay based on which of the first energy storage device or the second energy storage device has a lower state of charge (Fig. [10 s14] to Fig. 11], abstract, ¶’s [19-22, 39, 63-84, esp. 63-84]); and
simultaneously providing charging current to both the first energy storage device bay and the second energy storage device bay when the state of charge of the first energy storage device is approximately equal to the state of charge of the second energy storage device (Fig. [10 s16] & [11 s16] to Fig. 12, abstract, ¶’s [19-22, 39, 63, 69, 75, 79, 84-95, esp. 39, 63, 84-95]).
Gao fails to explicitly teach the SOC rather than the voltage is used for the determination of the charging mode.
Park teaches the SOC and the voltage are interchangeably used to determine a mode in charging a battery (¶’s [46, 69]), while teaching similar limitations to Gao where the mode to charge simultaneously is based on the SOC/voltage being substantially-identical/difference-between-the-two-being-less-than-a-threshold (¶’s [56-60, esp. 57, 59], see structure in Figs. [1, 2, 4, 5]). Official notice taken that SOC is easier to compare to voltage in a linear matter for a battery charge level, and as further evidenced by Lavell (Col 2 L63 to Col 3 L5) it is more reliable to prevent overcharging and other safety issue.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gao with Park to provide improved ease, reliability, and safety.
Independent Claim 18, Gao teaches a multi-bay battery pack charger (Figs. 1-9, element 200, packs [300, 302, 304]) comprising:
a housing (Figs. [1, 9] show the housing);
a first energy storage device bay disposed on a first surface of the housing (202), the first energy storage device bay configured to removably receive and electrically connect to a first energy storage device (302);
a second energy storage device bay disposed on a second surface of the housing (204), the second energy storage device bay configured to removably receive and electrically connect to a second energy storage device (304);
a power input configured to receive power from an external power source (230);
charging circuitry (205, see esp. Figs. [2-8]) coupled to the power input, the first energy storage device bay, and the second energy storage device bay, the charging circuitry configured to charge the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device using power received from the power input; and
an electronic controller configured to:
provide charging current to at least one of the first energy storage device bay or the second energy storage device bay based on which of the first energy storage device or the second energy storage device has a lower state of charge (Fig. [10 s14] to Fig. 11], abstract, ¶’s [19-22, 39, 63-84, esp. 63-84]), and
simultaneously provide charging current to both the first energy storage device bay and the second energy storage device bay when the state of charge of the first energy storage device is approximately equal to the state of charge of the second energy storage device (Fig. [10 s16] & [11 s16] to Fig. 12, abstract, ¶’s [19-22, 39, 63, 69, 75, 79, 84-95, esp. 39, 63, 84-95]).
Gao fails to explicitly teach the SOC rather than the voltage is used for the determination of the charging mode.
Park teaches the SOC and the voltage are interchangeably used to determine a mode in charging a battery (¶’s [46, 69]), while teaching similar limitations to Gao where the mode to charge simultaneously is based on the SOC/voltage being substantially-identical/difference-between-the-two-being-less-than-a-threshold (¶’s [56-60, esp. 57, 59], see structure in Figs. [1, 2, 4, 5]). Official notice taken that SOC is easier to compare to voltage in a linear matter for a battery charge level, and as further evidenced by Lavell (Col 2 L63 to Col 3 L5) it is more reliable to prevent overcharging and other safety issue.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gao with Park to provide improved ease, reliability, and safety.
Dependent Claims 3, 11, and 20, the combination of Gao and Park teaches the electronic controller is further configured to determine which of the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device has a lower state of charge (Gao Figs. [10, 11], Park ¶’s [56-60]).
Dependent Claims 4 and 12, the combination of Gao and Park teaches a first diode electrically connected between the first switch and the first energy storage device bay; and a second diode electrically connected between the second switch and the second energy storage device bay (Fig. 7 of Gao, 220 & 222, ¶[43]).
Dependent Claims 6 and 14, the combination of Gao and Park teaches the electronic controller is further configured to:
provide charging current to the other of the first energy storage device bay and the second energy storage device bay after a voltage of the first energy storage device or the second energy storage device that had the lower state of charge increases (as cited above for both, by charging together, the current is provided, and increasing from zero causes them to charge together, when in the first mode only one battery is charged).
Dependent Claims 7 and 15, the combination of Gao and Park teaches the electronic controller is further configured to:
increase charging current to the other of the first energy storage device bay and the second energy storage device bay after a voltage of the first energy storage device or the second energy storage device that had the lower state of charge increases (as cited above for both, by charging together, the current is provided, and increasing from zero causes them to charge together, when in the first mode only one battery is charged).
Claims 2, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (USPGPN 20190288534) in view of Park (USPGPN 20150194707), further in view of Shirazi (USPGPN 20230116349; noted that cited sections were included with the provisional application filed 9/13/19), as evidenced by Lavell et al (USPN 4052656)
Dependent Claims 2 & 19, Gao is silent to the first surface is opposite the second surface
Shirazi teaches the first surface is opposite the second surface (Fig. 1C, surface for battery interface/receptacle 170 is opposite to surface for battery interface/receptacle 175, see esp. ¶’s [63, 64]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the receptacle on both the top and bottom surfaces, it increases the available space to provide charging, so the surface area of the charger does not need to be increased. Compare Fig. 1C with Fig. 1A, where double the surface area is required to accommodate the two batteries on one side. Therefore, the space efficiency is optimized.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gao in view of Park with Shirazi to provide optimized space efficiency.
Dependent Claims 8 and 16, Gao is silent to the charging circuitry includes a DC-DC converter that steps down a voltage received from the external power source (converter circuitry 205 is taught, but not explicitly DC-DC).
Park teaches the charging circuitry includes a DC-DC (Park ¶[105], element 14 in Fig. 4) that converts a voltage received from the external power source (solar panel/grid, Fig.4)
Shirazi teaches the charging circuitry includes a DC-DC converter that steps down a voltage (¶’s [78, 81], Figs. [1A-2, 5, 6]) received from the external power source (120, 180, 200;
¶’s [49-52, 55, 56] describes the converter of Figs. 1A-2 as the converter of Figs. 5 & 6).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a DC-DC converter can improve the flexibility so as to allow different circuits of different voltage/current ratings to work together, such as 110-120/220-240VAC to work with a battery of 12V or higher.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gao in view of Park with Shirazi to provide improved flexibility.
8. The multi-bay battery pack charger of claim 1, wherein the charging circuitry includes a DC-DC converter (Park ¶[105], element 14 in Fig. 4) that steps down a voltage received from the external power source.
Dependent Claims 9 and 17, Gao is silent the charging circuitry includes a DC-DC converter that steps up a voltage received from the external power source (converter circuitry 205 is taught, but not explicitly DC-DC).
Park teaches the charging circuitry includes a DC-DC (Park ¶[105], element 14 in Fig. 4) that converts a voltage received from the external power source (solar panel/grid, Fig.4)
Shirazi teaches the charging circuitry includes a DC-DC converter that steps up a voltage (¶’s [78, 81], Figs. [1A-2, 5, 6]) received from the external power source (120, 180, 200;
¶’s [49-52, 55, 56] describes the converter of Figs. 1A-2 as the converter of Figs. 5 & 6).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a DC-DC converter can improve the flexibility so as to allow different circuits of different voltage/current ratings to work together, such as 110-120/220-240VAC to work with a battery of 12V or higher.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gao in view of Park with Shirazi to provide improved flexibility.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (USPGPN 20190288534) in view of Park (USPGPN 20150194707), further in view of White et al (USPGPN 20160149421), as evidenced by Lavell et al (USPN 4052656) and Koshki et al (USPGPN 20070176493)
Dependent Claims 5 and 13, Gao fails to explicitly teach the first diode and the second diode are ideal diodes
White teaches the first diode and the second diode are ideal diodes (Fig. 1, ¶’s [21-23, esp. 23] referring to 132-138 & 132-148 for parallel battery groups).
Koski provides evidence that ideal diode provide longer system run time, lower heat dissipation, and improved reliability (¶[31]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gao in view of Park with White to provide improved system run time length, heat dissipation, and reliability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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 T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859