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 Objections
Claims 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 7 and 8, the applicant claims “the third control signal”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis (Claim 3 introduced the term, but Claim 7 does not depend on it). Provide the antecedent basis to Claim 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the part numbers of Figs. 1 & 2 are not clearly labeled with text/symbols to clearly define what they are only in the figures. Add them. 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the 3rd and 4th signals 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains exemplary language “relates”. Replace with “describes” or some alternative.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Control module in claims 1-9 and Receiver module in Claims 1-9. These limitations are considered to be a processor, see ¶[78] and Fig. 1 of the published specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al (CN 111934414 A).
Independent Claim 1, Zhao discloses a control device (see Figs. [1 & 3], ¶’s [23, 40, 91, 93, 103]) for a power swap station (Fig. 3; performing methods of Figs. [2], ¶[01]), comprising:
a receiving module (part of controller which senses/receives data, see 112f interpretation), configured to receive first information and second information for indication, wherein the first information indicates a status of the power swap station, and the second information indicates a working requirement on the power swap station (¶’s [06, 39, 40]); and
a control module (part of controller which makes decisions/comparisons, see 112f interpretation), configured to:
send a first control signal in response to that the first information indicates that the power swap station is in an on-grid state and the second information indicates a charging requirement on at least one battery pack in the power swap station, wherein the first control signal instructs to perform an on-grid charging operation on the power swap station, to charge the at least one battery pack (¶[42], signal would be to one or more switches of Fig. 3), and
send a second control signal in response to that the first information indicates that the power swap station is in an off-grid state and the second information indicates a power swap requirement on the power swap station, wherein the second control signal instructs to perform off-grid discharging operation on the power swap station, so that the power swap station can complete the power swap requirement (¶[43], signal would be to one or more switches of Fig. 3).
Independent Claim 10, Zhao discloses a control method (Figs. [2]) for a power swap station (Figs. [1 & 3], ¶[01]), comprising:
receiving first information and second information for indication, wherein the first information indicates a status of the power swap station, and the second information indicates a working requirement on the power swap station (¶’s [06, 39, 40]);
send a first control signal in response to that the first information indicates that the power swap station is in an on-grid state and the second information indicates a charging requirement on at least one battery pack in the power swap station, wherein the first control signal instructs to perform an on-grid charging operation on the power swap station, to charge the at least one battery pack (¶[42], signal would be to one or more switches of Fig. 3), and
send a second control signal in response to that the first information indicates that the power swap station is in an off-grid state and the second information indicates a power swap requirement on the power swap station, wherein the second control signal instructs to perform off-grid discharging operation on the power swap station, so that the power swap station can complete the power swap requirement (¶[43], signal would be to one or more switches of Fig. 3).
Dependent Claims 2 and 11, Zhao discloses the control module is further configured to send the second control signal in response to that the first information indicates that the power swap station is in the off-grid state and the second information indicates that the power swap station is performing a power swap operation (¶[43], signal to one or more switches of Fig. 3).
Dependent Claim 4, Zhao discloses control device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is powered by an uninterruptible power supply UPS (¶[103]).
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.
Claims 3, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (CN 111934414 A) in view of Li et al (USPGPN 20230061401)
Dependent Claim 3 and 12, Zhao teaches the first information indicates that the power swap station is in the on-grid state.
Zhao is silent to the control module is further configured to send a third control signal in response to that the first information indicates that the power swap station is in the on-grid state and the second information indicates a power supply requirement on a grid, wherein the third control signal instructs to perform an on-grid discharging operation on the power swap station, to reversely supply power to the grid.
Li teaches the control module (23 of Figs. 1 & 2, 800 of Fig. 8, Fig. 9) is further configured to send a third control signal in response to that the first information indicates that the power swap station (20) is in the on-grid (30) state and the second information indicates a power supply requirement on a grid, wherein the third control signal instructs to perform an on-grid discharging operation on the power swap station, to reversely supply power to the grid (Figs. 3-7, esp. s330 in each ). Li teaches this method serves to improve the utilization rate of electric energy of batteries in a battery swapping station is improved (¶’s [04, 55) while ensuring improved stability of the grid (¶’s [114, 168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhao with Li to provide improved stability and utilization rate.
Dependent Claim 6, Zhao teaches a charging and discharging apparatus for a power swap station, wherein the charging and discharging apparatus is connected to at least one battery pack, a grid, and station usage power of the power swap station (Figs. 1 & 3), and the charging and discharging apparatus comprises:
the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above); and
a power conversion device, configured to: convert direct current power from the at least one battery pack to alternating current power in response to receiving of the second control signal, to supply power to the power swap operation of the power swap station (¶[97])
Zhao is silent to a power conversion device, configured to: convert alternating current power from the grid to direct current power in response to receiving of the first control signal, to charge the at least one battery pack; and convert direct current power from the at least one battery pack to alternating current power in response to receiving of the second control signal, to supply power (while it can be inferred that the same converter converts the AC to DC, it is not explicitly clear that it does).
Li teaches a power conversion device, configured to: convert alternating current power from the grid to direct current power in response to receiving of the first control signal, to charge the at least one battery pack; and convert direct current power from the at least one battery pack to alternating current power in response to receiving of the second control signal, to supply power (see Figs. 1 & 2, 24 ¶[71] states the converter provides both/bidirectional conversion of AC to DC and DC to AC). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having one element provide both operations, it serves to improve the size of the system as two different circuits are not required to perform both steps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhao with Li to provide improved compactness.
Dependent Claim 7, Zhao is silent to the power conversion device is further configured to: convert direct current power from the at least one battery pack to alternating current power in response to receiving of the third control signal, to reversely supply power to the grid.
Li teaches the control module (23 of Figs. 1 & 2, 800 of Fig. 8, Fig. 9) is further configured to send a third control signal in response to that the first information indicates that the power swap station (20) is in the on-grid (30) state and the second information indicates a power supply requirement on a grid, wherein the third control signal instructs to perform an on-grid discharging operation on the power swap station, to reversely supply power to the grid (Figs. 3-7, esp. s330 in each ). Li teaches this method serves to improve the utilization rate of electric energy of batteries in a battery swapping station is improved (¶’s [04, 55) while ensuring improved stability of the grid (¶’s [114, 168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhao with Li to provide improved stability and utilization rate.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (CN 111934414 A) in view of Scheucher (USPGPN 20070188137; hereinafter Sche)
Dependent Claim 5 and 13, Zhao is silent to the receiving module is further configured to receive third information, wherein the third information indicates a progress of the power swap operation in the power swap station, and the control module is further configured to send a fourth control signal in response to that the third information indicates that the power swap operation has completed, wherein the fourth control signal instructs to perform charging and discharging health check on a newly replaced battery pack.
Sche teaches the receiving module is further configured to receive third information, wherein the third information indicates a progress of the power swap operation in the power swap station, and the control module is further configured to send a fourth control signal in response to that the third information indicates that the power swap operation has completed, wherein the fourth control signal instructs to perform charging and discharging health check on a newly replaced battery pack (Claim 20 of Sche, ¶’s [202, 282]). Sche teaches this process serves to ensure the higher State of health (SOH) batteries are used more often than those with lower SOH due to the higher charge capacity (and thus range, ¶[202]). Thus, reliability & convenience of users can be improved by ensuring those with improved range are preferentially provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhao with Sche to provide improved convenience and reliability.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (CN 111934414 A) in view of Li et al (USPGPN 20230061401), further in view of Scheucher (USPGPN 20070188137; hereinafter Sche)
Dependent Claim 8, the combination of Zhao and Li teaches switches configured to be switched off in response to the first control signal or the third control signal and be switched on in response to the second control signal (switches of Zhao and Li perform these functions, as described above).
Zhao is silent to an N-channel switch
Sche teaches an N-channel switch (¶’s [182-184). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that transistors are quicker and lower costs/size than other types of switches (official notice taken)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhao in view of Li with Sche to provide improved costs, size, and speed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (CN 111934414 A) in view of Li et al (USPGPN 20230061401), further in view of Salter et al (USPGPN 20220032796)
Dependent Claim 9, Zhao is silent to communication between the control device and the power conversion device is performed through a controller area network CAN.
Salter teaches communication between the control device and the power conversion device is performed through a controller area network CAN (¶[61]). Salter demonstrates in Fig. 5 that the system is analogous to Zhao in that the batteries can be removed and used for other operations, i.e. are swappable, see further abstract. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that CAN communication is very commonly used, and is therefore understood to be a reliable form of communication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhao in view of Li with Salter to provide improved 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