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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10 recites “(i) providing electrical power from the first battery stack to the second battery stack” the examiner believes this a typographical error and should likely read like claim 1 “(i) providing electrical power from the first battery stack to the switch mode power supply”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan et al. US 20120126820.
With regards to claims 1 and 11 Tan discloses, a computer-implemented method for charging and discharging electric vehicle (EV) charging station batteries, the method comprising:
charging a first battery stack [fig 6 pack b 622] by: (i) providing electrical power from a second battery stack [pack a 608] to a switch mode power supply [power supplies 604 and 618, and switches 614 and 616], and (ii) providing electrical power from the switch mode power supply to the first battery stack [fig 7 discloses charging a first battery pack by the second battery pack via a switch and power supply];
determining, by a controller [¶19 “The system management unit may comprise a microcontroller”], occurrence of a trigger event associated with a first state of charge (SOC) of the first battery stack or a second SOC of the second battery stack [fig 7 step 724 SOCs of the battery packs are determined which reasonably reads on the trigger event]; and
in response to determining occurrence of the trigger event, charging the second battery stack by: (i) providing electrical power from the first battery stack to the switch mode power supply, and (ii) providing electrical power from the switch mode power supply to the second battery stack [fig 8 which is phase 2 and occurs after the “trigger event” of the conclusion of phase 1, discloses charging the second battery pack by the first battery pack via a switch and power supply].
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claims 2 and 12 Tan discloses, the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the controller from a first battery management system (BMS) electrically coupled to the first battery stack [fig 6 system management unit 602 coupled to the battery pack], a first battery stack charge status signal, wherein the first BMS is configured to generate the first battery stack charge status signal indicating the first SOC of the first battery stack [fig 7 step 702 check voltage status and 712/714 where the system checks if the battery packs are charged/discharged].
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claims 9 and 14 Tan discloses, the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the controller, occurrence of a top off power supply trigger event associated with the first SOC of the first battery stack or the second SOC of the second battery stack; and in response to determining occurrence of the top off power supply trigger event, providing, from a top off power supply, additional electrical power to the second battery stack [¶38 “The cells e.g. 114 may be charged by an external Constant Current Constant Voltage (CCCV) charger (not shown)” and ¶53 “In the event that the Battery Pack A has depleted its energy (i.e. fully discharged) before the Battery Pack B has been fully charged, as determined in step 712, the process proceeds to step 716 where the System Management Unit (SMU) turns off the Programmable Power Supply A (PPSA) and the Power Switch (PSW) to stop the charging of the Battery Pack B. Subsequently, the System Management Unit (SMU) enables the CCCV Charger B to continue the charging of the Battery Pack B” which reasonably discloses that if the second battery is not charged up to its required SOC threshold a power supply is utilized to complete the remaining charge].
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 10 Tan discloses, the method of claim 9, wherein determining the top off power supply trigger event comprises determining that: (i) the first SOC of the first battery stack has fallen below a battery stack charge depletion threshold, and (ii) the second SOC of the second battery stack has not passed a battery stack charge completion threshold [see rejection of claims 9/14].
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. US 20120126820 in view of Wang et al. US 20220250504.
With regards to claim 3 Tan fails to disclose, the method of claim 2, wherein the trigger event comprises the first SOC exceeding a battery stack charge completion threshold of at least approximately 85% SOC.
However, Wang discloses, wherein the trigger event comprises the first SOC exceeding a battery stack charge completion threshold of at least approximately 85% SOC [¶23 “To extend life, certain traction batteries may be controlled such that during charge their state of charge does not exceed an upper limit (e.g., 85%)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Tan and Wang to keep the SOC trigger around 85% in order to extend battery life.
Claims 4, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. US 20120126820 in view of Liu et al. US 20230387696.
With regards to claims 4 and 13 Tan discloses, the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the controller a second battery stack charge status signal, is configured to generate the second battery stack charge status signal indicating the second SOC of the second battery stack [fig 7 step 702 check voltage status and 712/714 where the system checks if the battery packs are charged/discharged].
Tan fails to disclose a second battery management system (BMS) electrically coupled to the second battery stack.
However, Liu discloses, a second battery management system (BMS) [fig 1 discloses a BMS for each battery pack] electrically coupled to the second battery stack. Liu further discloses, a second battery stack charge status signal, wherein the second BMS is configured to generate the second battery stack charge status signal indicating the second SOC of the second battery stack [¶12 “a master battery pack may gather battery status information from one or more slave battery packs by messaging over a communication channel” and ¶71 “Status information may include the state of charge (SoC) information”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Tan and Liu to include a BMS for each stack in order to improve system control, and to determine the SOC statuses of the batteries in order to prevent damage and extend battery life.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 15 Tan discloses, a system for charging and discharging electric vehicle (EV) charging station batteries, the system comprising:
a first battery assembly comprising: (i) a first battery stack [fig 6 pack b 622], and (ii) a first battery management system (BMS) [System management unit (SMU) 602], wherein the first BMS is configured to generate a first battery stack charge status signal indicating a first state of charge (SOC) of the first battery stack [fig 7 step 724 SOCs of the battery packs are determined which reasonably reads on the trigger event];
a second battery assembly comprising: (i) a second battery stack [pack a 608];
a switch mode power supply electrically connected to the first battery assembly and the second battery assembly [power supplies 604 and 618, and switches 614 and 616]; and
a controller communicatively connected to the first BMS, the second BMS, and the switch mode power supply [¶19 “The system management unit may comprise a microcontroller”] and configured to:
control charging of the first battery stack until occurrence of a trigger event by: (i) providing electrical power from the second battery stack to the switch mode power supply and (ii) providing electrical power from the switch mode power supply to the first battery stack [fig 7 discloses charging a first battery pack by the second battery pack via a switch and power supply until the “trigger event” or threshold SOC occurs];
determine occurrence of the trigger event based upon the first SOC or the second SOC; and
in response to determining occurrence of the trigger event, control charging of the second battery stack by: (i) providing electrical power from the first battery stack to the switch mode power supply and (ii) providing electrical power from the switch mode power supply to the second battery stack [fig 8 which is phase 2 and occurs after the “trigger event” of the conclusion of phase 1, discloses charging the second battery pack by the first battery pack via a switch and power supply].
Tan fails to disclose a second BMS, wherein the second BMS is configured to generate a second battery stack charge status signal indicating a second SOC of the second battery stack.
However, Liu disclose, a second BMS [fig 1 discloses a BMS for each battery pack], wherein the second BMS is configured to generate a second battery stack charge status signal indicating a second SOC of the second battery stack [¶12 “a master battery pack may gather battery status information from one or more slave battery packs by messaging over a communication channel” and ¶71 “Status information may include the state of charge (SoC) information”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Tan and Liu to include a BMS for each battery in order to improve control, and to determine the SOC statuses of the batteries in order to prevent damage and extend battery life.
Claims 5, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. US 20120126820 in view of Liu et al. US 20230387696 further in view of Wang et al. US 20220250504.
With regards to claims 5 and 17 Tan in view of Liu fail to disclose, the method of claim 4, wherein the trigger event comprises the second SOC not exceeding a battery stack charge depletion threshold of less than approximately 10% SOC.
However, Wang discloses, wherein the trigger event comprises the second SOC not exceeding a battery stack charge depletion threshold of less than approximately 10% SOC [¶23 “during discharge their state of charge does not fall below a lower limit (e.g., 30%)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the systems of Tan in view of Liu with Wang to limit the battery depletion threshold in order to prevent damage and extend battery life.
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 16 Tan in view of Liu fail to disclose, the system of claim 15, wherein the trigger event comprises the first SOC exceeding a battery stack charge completion threshold of at least approximately 85% SOC.
However, Wang discloses, wherein the trigger event comprises the first SOC exceeding a battery stack charge completion threshold of at least approximately 85% SOC [¶23 “To extend life, certain traction batteries may be controlled such that during charge their state of charge does not exceed an upper limit (e.g., 85%)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the systems of Tan in view of Liu with Wang to keep the SOC trigger around 85% in order to extend battery life.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. US 20120126820 in view of King et al. US 20100097031.
With regards to claim 6 Tan fails to disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein the switch mode power supply comprises: a boost component configured to: (i) receive an input voltage from either the first battery stack or the second battery stack, and (ii) output a boosted output voltage to a buck component; and the buck component configured to: (i) receive the boosted output voltage, and (ii) output a charging current to either of the first battery stack or the second battery stack.
However, King discloses, wherein the switch mode power supply comprises: a boost component configured to: (i) receive an input voltage from either the first battery stack or the second battery stack, and (ii) output a boosted output voltage to a buck component; and the buck component configured to: (i) receive the boosted output voltage, and (ii) output a charging current to either of the first battery stack or the second battery stack [¶24 “a switch-mode power supply, such as one including a buck/boost converter for example, controls the current output”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Tan and King to include a buck/boost component within the switch mode power supply to condition the current/voltage being supplied to the battery in order to enable efficient power conversion.
With regards to claim 7 the combination discloses, the method of claim 6, wherein the charging current is determined based on a charging current signal generated by: (i) a first battery management system (BMS) electrically coupled to the first battery stack, or (ii) a second BMS electrically coupled to the second battery stack [Tan ¶10 “The system may further comprise a current limiter coupled to the data communication bus, the current limiter being electrically connected between the first and second battery pack to limit a charging current for charging the first battery pack from the discharging of the second pack for an initial charging of the first battery pack in a constant current charging state under the control of the system management unit” which reasonably reads on the charging current based on a charging current signal].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. US 20120126820 in view of King et al. US 20100097031 further in view of Herke et al. US 20160214493.
With regards to claims 8 Tan in view of King fail to disclose, the method of claim 6, wherein: the boosted output voltage is approximately 860V; and the received input voltage is between approximately 600V and 810V.
However, Herke disclose, the boosted output voltage is approximately 860V; and the received input voltage is between approximately 600V and 810V [fig 2 and ¶18 “voltage level Vout between 600 V and 900 V, in particular of 800 V” which reads on the approximate output voltages disclosed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the systems of Tan in view of King with Herke to provide the approximate output voltages in order to reduce charging times.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. US 20120126820 in view of Liu et al. US 20230387696 further in view of King et al. US 20100097031.
With regards to claim 18 Tan in view of Liu fail to disclose, the system of claim 15, wherein the switch mode power supply comprises: a boost component configured to: (i) receive an input voltage from either the first battery stack or the second battery stack, and (ii) output a boosted output voltage to a buck component; and the buck component configured to: (i) receive the boosted output voltage, and (ii) output a charging current to either of the first battery stack or the second battery stack.
However, King discloses, wherein the switch mode power supply comprises: a boost component configured to: (i) receive an input voltage from either the first battery stack or the second battery stack, and (ii) output a boosted output voltage to a buck component; and the buck component configured to: (i) receive the boosted output voltage, and (ii) output a charging current to either of the first battery stack or the second battery stack [¶24 “a switch-mode power supply, such as one including a buck/boost converter for example, controls the current output”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the systems of Tan in view of Liu with King to include a buck/boost component within the switch mode power supply to condition the current/voltage being supplied to the battery in order to enable efficient power conversion.
With regards to claim 19 the combination discloses, the system of claim 18, wherein: the first BMS is further configured to output a charging current signal to the switch mode power supply [Tan ¶10 “The system may further comprise a current limiter coupled to the data communication bus, the current limiter being electrically connected between the first and second battery pack to limit a charging current for charging the first battery pack from the discharging of the second pack for an initial charging of the first battery pack in a constant current charging state under the control of the system management unit” which reasonably reads on the charging current based on a charging current signal]; and
the buck component is further configured to output the charging current at a charging current level according to the charging current signal [King ¶24 “a switch-mode power supply, such as one including a buck/boost converter for example, controls the current output”].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. US 20120126820 in view of Liu et al. US 20230387696 further in view of King et al. US 20100097031 further in view of Herke et al. US 20160214493.
With regards to claim 20 Tan in view of Liu and King fail to disclose, The system of claim 18, wherein: the boosted output voltage is approximately 860V; and the received input voltage is between approximately 600V and 810V.
However, Herke disclose, the boosted output voltage is approximately 860V; and the received input voltage is between approximately 600V and 810V [fig 2 and ¶18 “voltage level Vout between 600 V and 900 V, in particular of 800 V” which reads on the approximate output voltages disclosed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the systems of Tan in view of Liu and King with Herke to provide the approximate output voltages in order to reduce charging times.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights