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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application 18/289,684 filed 11/6/23. Claims 1-26 are pending with claims 1 and 22 in independent form.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-18 and 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denning et al. US 7589499 B2 in view of Braun et al. US 2016/0368392 A1.
Denning teaches:
Re: claim 1, A power supply system comprising a multiplicity of battery modules (fig. 1; cell 1, cell 2, …) wherein each battery module has a first electrical terminal and a second electrical terminal, by way of which the battery modules are arranged in series in a circuit branch of the power supply system (fig. 1), wherein each battery module further comprises an accumulator connected to the first electrical terminal and the second electrical terminal (implicit – each cell has to comprise at least 2 terminals), wherein the power supply system has a switch, which is arranged in series with the battery modules, and temporarily moved into a blocking state so that, during a charging process of the power supply system with an AC voltage from an external energy source, a load voltage in the circuit branch does not exceed a maximum permissible charging voltage (col. 10, lines 27-50; col. 11, line 64 – col. 12, line 1; col. 13, lines 6-14; col. 15, lines 10-16).
Re: claim 22, A method for charging a power supply system with an AC voltage, wherein the power supply system comprises a multiplicity of battery modules (fig. 1; cell 1, cell 2, …), wherein each battery module has a first electrical terminal and a second electrical terminal, by way of which the battery modules are arranged in series in a circuit branch of the power supply system (fig, 1), wherein each battery module further comprises an accumulator configured to be connected to the first electrical terminal and the second electrical terminal (implicit – each cell has to comprise at least 2 terminals), and wherein the power supply system temporarily puts a switch arranged in series with the battery modules into a blocking state during the charging process, so that a load voltage in the circuit branch does not exceed a maximum permissible charging voltage (col. 10, lines 27-50; col. 11, line 64 – col. 12, line 1; col. 13, lines 6-14; col. 15, lines 10-16).
Denning fails to specifically teach re: claims 1 and 22, interconnecting the battery modules via bridge circuits.
However, Braun teaches interconnecting battery modules in series via bridge circuits (fig. 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Braun into the power supply system of Denning as an obvious matter of design choice to selectively switch the energy storage modules into the respective energy supply branch or to bypass it in the energy supply branch ([0010]).
Re: claim 2, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the power supply system has a control unit configured to put the switch into the blocking state as soon as the load voltage exceeds the maximum permissible charging voltage (Denning - col. 10, lines 26-34).
Re: claim 3, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is set up to move the switch from the blocking state to a non-blocking state during the charging process as soon as a voltage is applied to the circuit branch, which is of a level such that the load voltage after moving the switch into the non-blocking state is lower than the maximum permissible charging voltage of the power supply system (Denning - col. 10, lines 26-34).
Re: claim 4, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the load voltage is a voltage applied to the battery modules in the circuit branch, or a proportion of the voltage applied to the battery modules in the circuit branch (Denning – col. 10, lines 38-42 (the over voltage transient controller 720 may accept an input signal indicative of the voltage level provided to the battery pack)).
Re: claim 5, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 4, wherein the switch is designed to block at least a voltage equal to a difference between an anticipated maximum voltage in the circuit branch and a minimum maximum permissible charging voltage (Denning - col. 10, line 51 - col. 11, line 20).
Re: claim 6, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the switch is designed to block at least one anticipated maximum load voltage in the circuit branch (Denning – col. 10, lines 28-50).
Re: claim 7, Denning as modified by Braun teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the power supply system has a voltage measuring device arranged on the input side of the switch for measuring the load voltage (Denning - col. 11, lines 8-11; fig. 7).
Re: claim 8, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the switch is designed to block a current flow unidirectionally in the blocking state (Denning – fig. 1; the combination of switches 602, 604 can block unidirectionally and bidirectionally due to the flyback diodes connected in parallel with the switches).
Re: claim 9, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the switch is designed to block a current flow bidirectionally in the blocking state (Denning – fig. 1; the combination of switches 602, 604 can block unidirectionally and bidirectionally due to the flyback diodes connected in parallel with the switches).
Re: claim 10, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the power supply system has a rectifier bridge arranged on the input side of the switch (Braun – [0063]-[0065]).
Re: claim 11, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the switch is a transistor (Denning – fig. 7).
Re: claim 14, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according claim 1, wherein the switch is arranged in the circuit branch in front of a first battery module of the battery modules, or behind a last battery module of the battery modules (Denning - fig. 7).
Re: claim 15, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the circuit branch has a resistor, which is connected in parallel with the switch (Denning – fig. 9).
Re: claim 16, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the power supply system is arranged to check electrical power provided by the external power source to the power supply system for the presence of at least one fault characteristic, and to switch off upon detection of the fault characteristic (Denning - col. 10, lines 26-50).
Re: claim 17, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 16, wherein the fault characteristic is selected from the group consisting of: a presence of an overcurrent, a presence of an overvoltage, a presence of an undervoltage, an interruption of a connection to an external power source due to a disconnection of a plug, an exceedance of a slew rate of a voltage, an exceedance of a fall rate of a voltage, and an exceedance of, or a falling below, a voltage frequency (Denning – col. 10, lines 26-50).
Re: claim 18, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the bridge circuit is a full bridge (Braun – [0039]).
Re: claim 20, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the power supply system is set up to de-energize the switch before it is placed in the blocking state by the bridge circuits assuming switching states suitable for this purpose (Denning – [0072]).
Re: claim 21, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the power supply system is adapted to raise continuously a current applied to the switch from a zero level to an operating level during, and immediately after placing the switch in a non-blocking state by the bridge circuits assuming switching states suitable for this purpose (Denning – [0072]).
Re: claim 23, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the method according to Claim 22, whereby a control unit of the power supply system sets the switch to the blocking state as soon as the load voltage exceeds the maximum permissible charging voltage (Denning - col. 10, lines 26-34).
Re: claim 24, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the method according to Claim 23, whereby the control unit shifts the switch from the blocking state to a non-blocking state during the charging process as soon as a voltage is applied to the circuit branch which is so high that the load voltage after moving the switch to the non-blocking state is lower than the maximum permissible charging voltage of the power supply system (Denning - col. 10, lines 26-34).
Re: claim 25, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the method according to claim 22, whereby the switch is de-energized before being placed in the blocking state by the bridge circuits assuming switching states suitable for this purpose (Denning – [0072]).
Re: claim 26, Denning as modified by Braun additionally teaches the method according to claim 22, whereby a current applied to the switch during and immediately after a movement of the switch into a non-blocking state is continuously raised from a zero level to an operating level by the bridge circuits assuming switching states suitable for this purpose (Denning – [0072]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denning et al. US 7589499 B2 in view of Braun et al. US 2016/0368392 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krabbenborg et al. US 2013/0257533 A1.
The teachings of Denning and Braun have been discussed above.
Denning as modified by Braun teaches a switch but fails to specifically teach the switch is a TRIAC or SCR.
However, Krabbenborg teaches:
Re: claim 12, The power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the switch is a TRIAC ([0071]).
Re: claim 13, The power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the switch is an SCR ([0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Krabbenborg into the power supply of Denning as modified by Braun as an obvious matter of design choice that are both highly reliable and less prone to failure over time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, in conjunction with all the other limitations of the claims: With respect to claim 19 and all its dependencies, wherein the power supply system has a switching means to which the circuit branch is connected, wherein the power supply system furthermore comprises a charging path and a discharging path, which are connected to the switching means, and between which the switching means is configured to switch, and wherein the switch is arranged in the charging path, when included with all the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends. The prior art of record fails to provide sufficient teaching or motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the additionally recited features of these claims in the combinations as claimed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTY A HAUPT whose telephone number is (571)272-8545 and email address is kristy.haupt@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sun 5:30 AM- 10PM; Flex during day.
If all attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3689. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/KRISTY A HAUPT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
KAH
Prosecution Insights