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 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first fuse” in line 7, in line 9, in line 10 and in line 11. It is unclear as to which among the “at least one first fuse” said limitation refers to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first fuse” in line 10, in line 12, in line 13 and in line 14. It is unclear as to which among the “at least one first fuse” said limitation refers to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-13, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111640905A, refer to English machine translation by EPO, in view of CN110299744A, refer to English equivalent US 2023/0107559A1, hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 1, CN111640905A discloses a battery cluster (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-4), comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (multiple cells 12, see p.4); and
at least one first fuse (first fuse device 13, see p.4); wherein,
the plurality of battery cells and the at least one first fuse are connected in series to form a series branch (cells connected in series, one cell of the multiple cells is also connected in series with a first fuse device 13 or second fuse, see p.4); and
the series branch is connected to a switch box provided with a second fuse (the other of a first fuse device 13 or second fuse connected in series, switch box connected to battery modules, see p.4-5).
Further regarding claim 1, CN111640905A does not disclose a rated blowing current of the first fuse is the same as a rated blowing current of the second fuse, and a blowing sensitivity of the first fuse is less than a blowing sensitivity of the second fuse; or, a rated blowing current of the first fuse is greater than a rated blowing current of the second fuse.
Zhou discloses a high voltage battery cluster, an overcurrent protection circuit and a switch box, wherein a high-sensitivity fuse may be an AR fast fusing fuse and a fuse having overload breaking capacity and short-circuit breaking capacity may be a gPV slow fusing fuse (see Title, Abstract, [0048]).
There are only a finite number of solutions for selecting a fuse characteristics based on function (e.g.., a higher sensitivity, fast fusing fuse or overload/short-circuit breaking capacity slow fusing fuse), namely, selecting a rated blowing current of the first fuse to be greater than, the same or less than the second fuse and selecting a blowing sensitivity of the first fuse to be greater than, the same or less than the second fuse. Thus, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Further regarding claim 1 reciting the limitation “the second fuse in the switch box is blown prior to the first fuse in a case that a malfunction occurs”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim. See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 5, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN111640905A discloses the plurality of battery cells are divided into a plurality of battery packs, and each battery pack comprises at least one battery cell; the battery cells in each battery pack are connected in series to form a battery string; battery strings are connected in series; and at least one first fuse is connected in series between at least one pair of adjacent battery strings (multiple battery modules 10 connected in series, each battery module 10 is composed of a plurality of battery cells 12, fuse connected in series between the plurality of battery modules 10, see p.4-5).
Regarding claim 6, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN111640905A discloses the battery cells are arranged on a battery rack, and battery cells in a same battery pack are located in a same column; and
the at least one first fuse is connected in series between two battery strings in adjacent columns on the battery rack (battery modules arranged in a rack 20, fuse connected in series between the plurality of battery modules 10, see p.5, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN111640905A discloses in a case that a quantity of the at least one first fuse is greater than one, at least one first fuse is connected in series in at least one battery string (fuse connected in series between the plurality of battery modules 10, see p.5).
Regarding claim 8, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN111640905A discloses the plurality of battery cells are divided into a plurality of battery packs, and each battery pack comprises at least one battery cell;
the battery cells in each battery pack are connected in series to form a battery string;
battery strings are connected in series; and at least one first fuse is connected in series in at least one battery string (multiple battery modules 10 connected in series, each battery module 10 is composed of a plurality of battery cells 12, fuse connected in series between the plurality of battery modules 10, see p.4-5).
Regarding claim 9, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 9 reciting the limitation “in an assembly process of the battery cluster, the first fuse is connected to the battery cells before connecting the battery cells to each other”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim. See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
Regarding claim 10, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 10 reciting the limitation “a positive output cable and a negative output cable of the battery cluster are connected to the battery cells after connecting the first fuse to the battery cells in the battery cluster”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim. See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
Regarding claim 11, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 11 reciting the limitation “the negative output cable is connected to the battery cells before connecting the positive output cable to the battery cells”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim. See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
Regarding claim 21, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, CN111640905A does not further disclose the battery cluster comprises the switch box.
Zhou discloses a battery cluster comprising a switch box 150 ([0033], [0038], see Fig. 1,9).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 12, CN111640905A discloses an energy storage system (power system, see p.1), comprising:
a battery combiner cabinet (BCP) (frame, see p.6);
at least one battery cluster (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-4), the battery cluster comprising a plurality of battery cells (multiple cells 12, see p.4); and at least one first fuse (first fuse device 13, see p.4); wherein the plurality of battery cells and the at least one first fuse are connected in series to form a series branch (cells connected in series, one cell of the multiple cells is also connected in series with a first fuse device 13 or second fuse, see p.4), and the series branch is connected to a switch box provided with a second fuse (the other of a first fuse device 13 or second fuse connected in series, switch box connected to battery modules, see p.4-5).
However, CN111640905A does not disclose an energy storage inverter (PCS); and each battery cluster is connected to a terminal of the BCP; and another terminal of the BCP is connected to a power grid through the PCS.
Zhou discloses the power conversion system includes an inverter, wherein a terminal of one branch serves as a positive input terminal and is connected to a positive input terminal of the inverter, and a terminal of one branch serves as a negative input terminal and is connected to a negative input terminal of the inverter, a first output terminal of the inverter 350 serves as a first output terminal of the power conversion system PCS and is connected to a first input terminal of a power grid, a second output terminal of the inverter 350 serves as a second output terminal of the power conversion system PCS and is connected to a second input terminal of the power grid ([0043]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Further regarding claim 12, CN111640905A does not disclose a rated blowing current of the first fuse is the same as a rated blowing current of the second fuse, and a blowing sensitivity of the first fuse is less than a blowing sensitivity of the second fuse; or, a rated blowing current of the first fuse is greater than a rated blowing current of the second fuse.
Zhou discloses a high voltage battery cluster, an overcurrent protection circuit and a switch box, wherein a high-sensitivity fuse may be an AR fast fusing fuse and a fuse having overload breaking capacity and short-circuit breaking capacity may be a gPV slow fusing fuse (see Title, Abstract, [0048]).
There are only a finite number of solutions for selecting a fuse characteristics based on function (e.g.., a higher sensitivity, fast fusing fuse or overload/short-circuit breaking capacity slow fusing fuse), namely, selecting a rated blowing current of the first fuse to be greater than, the same or less than the second fuse and selecting a blowing sensitivity of the first fuse to be greater than, the same or less than the second fuse. Thus, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Further regarding claim 12 reciting the limitation “the second fuse in the switch box is blown prior to the first fuse in a case that a malfunction occurs”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim. See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 13, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhou further discloses the battery cluster comprises the switch box, and the switch box in the battery cluster is connected to the BCP; or the battery cluster and the switch box are two independent parts, the energy storage system comprises the switch box, and the switch box is connected in series between the battery cluster and the BCP (the power conversion system includes an inverter, wherein a terminal of one branch serves as a positive input terminal and is connected to a positive input terminal of the inverter, and a terminal of one branch serves as a negative input terminal and is connected to a negative input terminal of the inverter, a first output terminal of the inverter 350 serves as a first output terminal of the power conversion system PCS and is connected to a first input terminal of a power grid, a second output terminal of the inverter 350 serves as a second output terminal of the power conversion system PCS and is connected to a second input terminal of the power grid [0043]).
Regarding claim 14, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 14 reciting the limitation “the second fuse in the switch box is blown prior to the first fuse in a case that a malfunction occurs”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim. See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
Further, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 15, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, CN111640905A does not further disclose a rated blowing current of the first fuse is the same as a rated blowing current of the second fuse, and a blowing sensitivity of the first fuse is less than a blowing sensitivity of the second fuse.
Zhou discloses a high voltage battery cluster, an overcurrent protection circuit and a switch box, wherein a high-sensitivity fuse may be an AR fast fusing fuse and a fuse having overload breaking capacity and short-circuit breaking capacity may be a gPV slow fusing fuse (see Title, Abstract, [0048]).
There are only a finite number of solutions for selecting a fuse characteristics based on function (e.g.., a higher sensitivity, fast fusing fuse or overload/short-circuit breaking capacity slow fusing fuse), namely, selecting a rated blowing current of the first fuse to be greater than, the same or less than the second fuse and selecting a blowing sensitivity of the first fuse to be greater than, the same or less than the second fuse. Thus, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, CN111640905A does not further disclose a rated blowing current of the first fuse is greater than a rated blowing current of the second fuse.
Zhou discloses a high voltage battery cluster, an overcurrent protection circuit and a switch box, wherein a high-sensitivity fuse may be an AR fast fusing fuse and a fuse having overload breaking capacity and short-circuit breaking capacity may be a gPV slow fusing fuse (see Title, Abstract, [0048]).
There are only a finite number of solutions for selecting a fuse characteristics based on function (e.g.., a higher sensitivity, fast fusing fuse or overload/short-circuit breaking capacity slow fusing fuse), namely, selecting a rated blowing current of the first fuse to be greater than, the same or less than the second fuse and selecting a blowing sensitivity of the first fuse to be greater than, the same or less than the second fuse. Thus, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN111640905A discloses the plurality of battery cells are divided into a plurality of battery packs, and each battery pack comprises at least one battery cell; the battery cells in each battery pack are connected in series to form a battery string; battery strings are connected in series; and at least one first fuse is connected in series between at least one pair of adjacent battery strings (multiple battery modules 10 connected in series, each battery module 10 is composed of a plurality of battery cells 12, fuse connected in series between the plurality of battery modules 10, see p.4-5).
Regarding claim 18, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN111640905A discloses the battery cells are arranged on a battery rack, and battery cells in a same battery pack are located in a same column; and the at least one first fuse is connected in series between two battery strings in adjacent columns on the battery rack (battery modules arranged in a rack 20, fuse connected in series between the plurality of battery modules 10, see p.5, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN111640905A discloses in a case that a quantity of the at least one first fuse is greater than one, at least one first fuse is connected in series in at least one battery string (fuse connected in series between the plurality of battery modules 10, see p.5).
Regarding claim 20, modified CN111640905A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN111640905A discloses the plurality of battery cells are divided into a plurality of battery packs, and each battery pack comprises at least one battery cell; the battery cells in each battery pack are connected in series to form a battery string; battery strings are connected in series; and at least one first fuse is connected in series in at least one battery string (multiple battery modules 10 connected in series, each battery module 10 is composed of a plurality of battery cells 12, fuse connected in series between the plurality of battery modules 10, see p.4-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 (i.e., the first fuse is located…outside the switch box and the second fuse arranged in the switch box, see Remarks filed 4/27/2026 on p.9) 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). More specifically, claim 1 does not recite that the first fuse(s) are located outside the switch box (claim 1 recites “at least one first fuse…connected in series to form a series branch”) and also does not recite that the second fuse is arranged in the switch box (claim 1 recites “a switch box provided with a second fuse”).
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to CN111640905A allegedly teaching away from the instant claims (see Remarks filed 4/27/2026 on p.9-10), this is not found to be persuasive because paragraphs [0069]-[0072] of CN111640905A, which applicants cite, discloses “the fuse in the switch box is disconnected, and the first fuse device 13 and the second fuse device 14 in the battery cluster are not disconnected”. Thus, CN111640905A teaches an embodiment that is consistent with and satisfies the instant claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to teach or suggest double fuse protection and fusing sequence of the present application, i.e., the first fuse is blown when the second fuse in the switch box fails so that the battery cluster has double fuse protection (see Remarks filed 4/27/2026 on p.9), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the structural requirements of the first fuse(s) and second fuse in the instant claims are a rated blowing current of the first fuse is the same as a rated blowing current of the second fuse, and a blowing sensitivity of the first fuse is less than a blowing sensitivity of the second fuse; or, a rated blowing current of the first fuse is greater than a rated blowing current of the second fuse.
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 (i.e., double fuse protection and fusing sequence of the present application, see Remarks filed 4/27/2026 on p.9) 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 this case, the structural requirements of the first fuse(s) and second fuse in the instant claims are a rated blowing current of the first fuse is the same as a rated blowing current of the second fuse, and a blowing sensitivity of the first fuse is less than a blowing sensitivity of the second fuse; or, a rated blowing current of the first fuse is greater than a rated blowing current of the second fuse.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to CN110299744A failing to teach or suggest new limitations in claim 1 (see Remarks filed 4/27/2026 on p.9-11), this is not found to be persuasive because the prior art reference is merely relied upon to teach fuses used with/in a battery can have different fusing characteristics. Thus, the combination of references relied upon to teach instant claim 1 envisages first fuse(s) having a lower blowing sensitivity than that of the second fuse, or a rated blowing current of the first fuse(s) being greater than that of the second fuse.
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 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 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights