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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “a battery module 130” on page 9 and 10 should be - - a battery module 120 - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brotto et al. (US8994336, cited by applicant) in view of Varta Microbattery (DE 202021100557, cited by applicant).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6, Brotto et al. disclose a mobile energy supply system (40, Fig. 2B) suitable to be used as an electrical socket (46, 48), the mobile energy supply system comprising: at least one battery module (56), each of the at least one battery modules comprising a plurality of battery cells (B1-BN); a controller (54) configured to selectively connect each of the at least one battery modules to an output of the energy supply system to provide a selected AC voltage at the output (col. 5, ll. 14-50) ; and the mobile energy supply system comprises a cascaded multi-level inverter topology (col 5. ll. 51-62).
Brotto et al. do not explicitly discloses that the mobile energy supply system comprises between 50 and 150 battery cells.
Varta Microbattery discloses the modular battery storage system according to the invention can comprise a very large number of energy storage modules. As a rule, the variable n is a value in the range from 2 to 100000, preferably in the range from 2 to 10000, particularly preferably 2 to 1000. Within these ranges, it is further preferred that the variable n has a value in the range from 5 to 100, particularly preferably from 5 to 20, in particular from 7 to 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider a different number of battery cells as taught by Varta Microbattery depending on the application, since it is a clear example of design choice. The claims to not recite any specific advantages of maintaining claimed ranges of number of battery cell.
The teachings of Brotto et al. and Varta Microbattery is silent about the weight of battery cell.
However, the weight of battery cell depends on the application of the battery cells, desired power, and types of battery cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider a different number and weight of battery cells to achieve a desired power level, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Brotto et al. in view of Varta Microbattery disclose the mobile energy supply system of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one battery modules comprises an input terminal (44); an output terminal (46 or 48) ; and a bridge circuit controlled by the controller, the bridge circuit configured to selectively connect the input terminal and the output terminal in one of a battery mode and a bridge mode; wherein in the battery mode, the input terminal and the output terminal are connected with the plurality of battery cells; and in the bridge mode, the input terminal and the output terminal are connected while the plurality of battery cells are bridged (col. 8, ll. 42-64).
Regarding claim 3, Brotto et al. in view of Varta Microbattery disclose the mobile energy supply system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of battery cells is connected in series or in parallel in each of the at least one battery modules (The series connection between the battery banks B.sub.1-B.sub.N allows the control module 54 to supply a high DC voltage to the inverter 58.).
Regarding claim 4, Brotto et al. in view of Varta Microbattery disclose the mobile energy supply system of claim 1, comprising at least two battery modules, wherein the controller is configured to selectively connect each of the at least two battery modules in series to provide the selected AC voltage at the output of the energy supply system (Fig. 3A, col. 5, line 14-col. 6, line 17).
Regarding claims 7-10, Brotto et al. in view of Varta Microbattery do not explicitly disclose the claimed shape and dimensions of battery cells, end-of charge voltage value, and charge capacity.
However, as discussed above, the number of battery modules and battery cells are not limited to a particular number or geometric shape and size. Rather, they are changeable depend on the application and desired power level. In addition, the geometrical shape and dimensions do not appear to achieve unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider a different number of battery cells, geometric shape and size, and storage capacity as taught by Brotto et al. in view of Varta Microbattery depending on the application since it is a clear example of design choice. The claims to not recite any specific advantages of maintaining claimed shape and size of battery cells.
Regarding claim 11, Brotto et al. in view of Varta Microbattery disclose the mobile energy supply system of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one battery modules is configured to individually be separated from or added to the mobile energy supply system, and wherein each of the at least one battery modules is configured to individually be electrically controlled by the controller (Abstract, Varta Microbattery).
Regarding claims 12-14, Brotto et al. in view of Varta Microbattery disclose the mobile energy supply system that is robust and configurable energy supply system (… the invention has the object of providing an improved modular battery storage system which, on the one hand, offers a cost-effective solution and, on the other hand, is very robust and not susceptible to failure in operation. In particular, the battery storage system should be able to with the individual Energy storage modules to feed the voltage generated into an alternating current network. Abstract and Description, Varta Microbattery). The claimed power density would be achieved by varying number of battery modules and battery cells as discussed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider a different number of battery modules and battery cells and different switching configurations to achieve a desired power density, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seong et al. discloses cylindrical rechargeable battery for a mobile device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-2404. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 6AM-4PM.
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, Allana L Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
STEVEN S. PAIK
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/STEVEN S PAIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights