DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 7/2/2026
Hereon, claims 1-4 are currently pending; claims 1-4 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaskai et al, (Iwasaki), (USNO.2013/0193768) in view of Ikeda, (USPATNO.5,161,067).
As for claim 1, Iwaskai discloses and shows in Fig. 2-5 a battery parallel wire connection structure of an energy storage system, comprising:
a power converter (via ref’s PCS) which is provided to select a power line from among a plurality of power lines to supply power; and a plurality of battery managers (via storage battery control units) that are sequentially connected to the power converter and are operated by the power which is selectively supplied through the power line selected from among the plurality of power lines, wherein the power converter includes a power output port, each of the battery managers includes a power input port (via ref’s power supply) and a power output port (SW1), and the power input port and the power output port of the battery manager include a power supply port and a plurality of bypass ports (SW3 & SW4) (par.[0018-0024,0045])
Iwaskai discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose internally wire-connected such that one of the bypass ports of the power input port is connected to the power supply port of the power output port
Ikeda discloses and shows in Fig. 1 internally wire-connected such a bypass port (via ref’s bypass switch) of a power input port is connected to a power supply port of a power output port (col.2, lines 24-45, col.3, lines 16-41)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Iwaskai by using an internally wire-connected such a bypass port (via ref’s bypass switch) of a power input port is connected to a power supply port of a power output port for advantages such as providing to the stabilized the output and reduce power loss (col, 2, lines 55-63), as taught by Ikeda.
As for claim 2, Iwaskai in combination with Ikeda discloses and shows [in Fig. 1 of Iwaskai] a power converter comprises: a power supply for supplying power; a selector for selecting one from among the plurality of power lines that are connected to the power output port of the power converter and outputting power of the power supply; and a master communicator for communication with a battery manager that is selected by the selector and supplied with power
As for claim 3, Iwaskai in combination with Ikeda discloses an internal wire connection of the battery manager is wire-connected to the power output port of a battery manager at a position which is shifted according to a rule (via ref’s perform discharging ) from a number of the power output port of the battery manager (par.[0041]).
As for claim 4, Iwaskai in combination with Ikeda discloses rule of shift is that the internal wire connection of all of the battery managers is a same configuration, and an external wire connection between the battery managers is shifted such that it can be wire-connected between ports having the same port number (via ref’s charge and discharge control command) (par.[0041])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ argument that
Referring to Iwasaki, paragraph [0066], the "selection" in Iwasaki is a unit selection that determines which storage battery control unit is to be connected to the parallel connection line for the purpose of output voltage equalization. In contrast, referring to the present application, paragraphs 0073 to 0077, the selection in the present application is for selecting which of the plurality of power lines is to be applied, thereby sequentially supplying power to a specific battery management unit and, through this, automatically recognizing a slave without a separate ID setting. Iwasaki neither discloses nor suggests the selective power supply and automatic recognition configuration as generally required by claim 1
Ikeda neither discloses nor suggests the fixed internal wiring connection configuration as generally required by claim 1. Iwasaki does not disclose a DC-DC converter to be bypassed for each storage battery control unit, there is no motivation provided to apply the effect of Ikeda to Iwasaki.
The examiner respectfully disagree and submits,
I & II. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Iwaskai discloses and shows in Fig. 2-5 a battery parallel wire connection structure of an energy storage system, comprising: a power converter (via ref’s PCS) which is provided to select a power line from among a plurality of power lines to supply power; and a plurality of battery managers (via storage battery control units) that are sequentially connected to the power converter and are operated by the power which is selectively supplied through the power line selected from among the plurality of power lines, wherein the power converter includes a power output port, each of the battery managers includes a power input port (via ref’s power supply) and a power output port (SW1), and the power input port and the power output port of the battery manager include a power supply port and a plurality of bypass ports (SW3 & SW4) (par.[0018-0024,0045]). Furthermore, Ikeda discloses and shows in Fig. 1 internally wire-connected such a bypass port (via ref’s bypass switch) of a power input port is connected to a power supply port of a power output port (col.2, lines 24-45, col.3, lines 16-41) as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Iwaskai by using an internally wire-connected such a bypass port (via ref’s bypass switch) of a power input port is connected to a power supply port of a power output port for advantages such as providing to the stabilized the output and reduce power loss (col, 2, lines 55-63), as taught by Ikeda.
For at least the reasons provided above, the applicant arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive. The applicant argues that dependent claims are patentable for similar reasons and are also not persuasive. The applicant further argues that since dependent claims depend on the argued independent claim; they are patentable at least by virtue of their dependencies. Since the applicant's arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive, the applicant's arguments regarding dependent claims are also not persuasive.
Accordingly, the rejection is still proper and thus maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights