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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings should be clear on their own, and these features lack clear symbols, legend, or text so that they can be clearly understood:
Elements [106, 108, 110, 112, 158, 101] of Fig. 1 are unclear
Elements [106, 108, 210A-210C, 212A-212C, 158, 201, 122, 230A-230C, 231A-231C] of Fig. 1 are unclear
All elements of Fig. 3 are unclear
The batteries of Figs. 11-13 are unclear (add symbol or text/legend to clarify)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains exemplary language (embodiments) and is not a summary of the invention. Include more detail (within the 150 word limit) on what the invention is, for instance the features of Figs. 5A-13. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, the applicant claims “in a first charging configuration the electrical power conversion system connects two power conversion stages independently to two strings of batteries of the four string grouping and controls the two power conversion stages to operate in lock-step at identical or unique DC currents to charge the two strings of batteries of the four string grouping; and
in a second charging configuration the electrical power conversion system connects the two power conversion stages independently to the other two strings of batteries of the four string grouping and controls the two power conversion stages to operate in lock-step at identical or unique DC currents to charge the other two strings of batteries of the four string grouping;”
While the plain meaning of the term “lock-step” makes sense with respect to “identical DC currents”, it does not make sense with “unique DC currents”.
Emend to “operate with unique DC currents or in lock-step at identical DC currents”
Claims 8 and 13, applicant claims two sets of “and/or” in each claim. Remove the 1st instance to improve clarity.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Syouda (USPGPN 20250007311)
Independent Claim 1, Syouda discloses a battery system (Fig. 1), comprising:
two or more strings of batteries (STR1-STRm); and
an electrical power conversion system connected (PC1-PCM, S1, S2, BL, 100, 10) to the strings of batteries and controllable to change configuration of connections of a set of switches to the two or more strings based on an operating state of the battery system (¶’s [20-31], Figs. [2,3])
Independent Claim 9, Syouda discloses a battery system (Fig. 1), comprising:
subsets of serially connected substrings of modules (M1-Mn, ¶[24] where if packs are used instead of modules, then packs often contain multiple cells/modules in series with each other, as is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art), wherein the subsets are configured to be connected into a full string (if all S2 are closed, each strings STR1-STRN are full strings); and
a bypass switch (BL, S1) associated with each subset configured to enable each subset to be individually switched in and out of the full string (¶’s [20-31], Figs. [2,3]).
Independent Claim 13 and Dependent Claim 8, Syouda discloses a battery system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a) DC/DC converters configured to step-up module voltage to a common bus voltage; and/or
b) subsets of serially connected substrings of modules (M1-Mn, ¶[24] where if packs are used instead of modules, then packs often contain multiple cells/modules in series with each other, as is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art), wherein the subsets are configured to be connected into a full string (if all S2 are closed, each strings STR1-STRN are full strings); and
a bypass switch associated with each subset configured to enable each subset to be individually switched in and out of the full string (¶’s [20-31], Figs. [2,3]); and/or
c) a series of modules connected via skip stringing.
Dependent Claim 2, Syouda discloses each of the strings of batteries comprise battery cells connected in series (Fig. 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeon et al (USPGPN 20190089178)
Independent Claim 13, Jeon discloses a battery system (Figs. [1-5, 8]), comprising:
a) DC/DC converters configured to step-up module voltage to a common bus voltage (converters shown in Figs. [1-5], where each of 110-112 is described as battery modules in ¶[41], boost/step-up operation described in at least ¶’s [43-46]); and/or
b) subsets of serially connected substrings of modules, wherein the subsets are configured to be connected into a full string; and
a bypass switch associated with each subset configured to enable each subset to be individually switched in and out of the full string; and/or
c) a series of modules connected via skip stringing.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syouda (USPGPN 20250007311) in view of Chow et al (USPGPN 20100117599)
Dependent Claim 3, Syouda is silent to the battery cells are connected in series to have:
a maximum operational voltage in a charge operating state less than a DC voltage maximum; and a maximum operational voltage in a discharge operating state less than the DC voltage maximum.
Chow teaches the battery cells are connected in series (abstract, Figs. 1-2B) to have:
a maximum operational voltage in a charge operating state less than a DC voltage maximum; and a maximum operational voltage in a discharge operating state less than the DC voltage maximum (abstract, ¶[14] where the batteries’ operational voltages are kept below their respective maximum operational voltages, i.e. below a DC voltage maximum;
Chow is analogous to Syouda in that Syouda teaches used batteries with different deterioration/failure rates ¶[14], while Chow describes the failure of any battery in the battery system/pack causing the keeping of the operational voltages below the maximum operational voltages so as to reduce the risk of further failure, i.e. improving safety and lifetime).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Syouda with Chow to provide improved lifetime and safety.
Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Syouda and Chow teaches the DC voltage maximum is 1500 V (Chow teaches the voltages of the batteries, before being reduced, are between 4.2V to 32, see ¶’s [23, 24, 38], with Fig. 2A showing a minimum of 3 batteries in series for a string, meaning the battery string voltages would be less than 1500 V [i.e. 96 V is less than 1500 V, 12.6 V is less than 1500 V).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syouda (USPGPN 20250007311) in view of Krishnan et al (USPGPN 20180301929; hereinafter Krish), as evidenced by Vartak et al (USPGPN 20020146600)
Dependent Claims 5 and 6, Syouda teaches the two or more strings of batteries (Fig. 1)
Syouda is silent to the batteries comprise metal-air type battery cells (with respect to [wrt] Claim 5) and the metal-air type battery cells comprise iron-air type battery cells, zinc-air type battery cells, and/or lithium-air battery cells (wrt Claim 6).
Krish teaches the batteries (Figs. 4-8) comprise metal-air type battery cells and the metal-air type battery cells comprise iron-air type battery cells, zinc-air type battery cells, and/or lithium-air battery cells (abstract, ¶’s [43-45, 71, esp. 45]). Vartak provides evidence that metal air [and in particular zinc air] batteries are easier to produce due to the availability of zinc, safer, easier to handle/store, and are available to work at ambient temperature (¶[05]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Syouda with Krish to provide improved ease and safety.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syouda (USPGPN 20250007311) in view of White et al (USPGPN 20160149421)
Dependent Claim 7, Syouda teaches the two or more strings of batteries comprise at least a four string grouping (Fig. 1);
in a charge state (abstract):
connects two power conversion stages independently to two strings of batteries (see Fig. 1, bypass allows for different subs-strings to be connected, but all full strings have a converter) for unique or lockstep-identical DC currents (¶’s [21 for DC current, 39, 40] Fig. 2)
in a discharge state (abstract, Fig. 3):
a first set of two strings of batteries of the four string grouping is connected in series (sub-strings all being connected together makes two sub-strings in series);
a second set of the two strings of batteries of the four string grouping is connected in series (sub-strings all being connected together makes two sub-strings in series); and
the electrical power conversion system connects one of the two power conversion stages to the first set of two strings and the second of the two power conversion stages to the second set of two strings (discharge available for the entire strings).
Syouda is silent to in a first charging configuration the electrical power conversion system connects two power input/output stages independently to two strings of batteries of the four string grouping and controls the two power input/output stages to operate to charge the two strings of batteries of the four string grouping; and in a second charging configuration the electrical power conversion system connects the two power input/output stages independently to the other two strings of batteries of the four string grouping & controls the two power input/ output stages to operate to charge the other two strings of batteries of the four string grouping.
White teaches in a first charging configuration the electrical power conversion system connects two power input/output stages independently to two strings of batteries of the four string grouping and controls the two power input/output stages to operate to charge the two strings of batteries of the four string grouping; and in a second charging configuration the electrical power conversion system connects the two power input/output stages independently to the other two strings of batteries of the four string grouping & controls the two power input/ output stages to operate to charge the other two strings of batteries of the four string grouping (Figs. [1, 3, 4] shows the structure, where Figs. [2, 5, esp. 5] describes a case where the strings are divided into two substrings which can be used for charging, see ¶’s [54-57, esp. 55, 56]). Fig. 2 then demonstrates that after a charging even has occurred, the strings which were charged separately are connected to the other strings in each string group 110 to discharge in series. White teaches these features provide improved efficiency, lower voltage power supply [which requires lower costs to buy them], and versatility to work with renewable energy sources (¶’s [63, 46, 17, 09, 03-05]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Syouda with White to provide improved costs, efficiency, and versatility.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syouda (USPGPN 20250007311) in view of Tyler et al (USPGPN 20210091709), as evidenced by Camp et al (USPGPN 20150044522)
Independent Claims 10 and 13, Syouda teaches a battery system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a series of battery modules (Fig. 1, each string)
Syouda is silent to power modules connected via skip stringing (it is noted that the remaining limitations of Claim 13 are presented in the alternative, so not necessary to reject).
Tyler teaches power modules connected via skip stringing (Figs. [10A, 10B, 12A-12D], ¶[59]), where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a battery and a solar panel are analogous in that they produce DC power for loads. Furthermore, Camp provides evidence (see at least Fig. 8, ¶’s [13, 78, 79, 82, 83 ,85]) that the leapfrog/skip-stringing is used in another analogous system with battery cells (battery controller connections).
Tyler teaches that this method of connecting power modules serves to reduce the amount of cable required (¶[59]), which one of ordinary skill in the art understands can improve costs (i.e. reduce costs) and weight (i.e. reduce weight,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Syouda with Tyler to provide improved costs and weight.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syouda (USPGPN 20250007311) in view of Tyler et al (USPGPN 20210091709), further in view of Krishnan et al (USPGPN 20180301929; hereinafter Krish), as evidenced by Vartak et al (USPGPN 20020146600) and Camp et al (USPGPN 20150044522)
Dependent Claims 11 and 12, Syouda teaches the two or more strings of batteries (Fig. 1)
Syouda is silent to the batteries comprise metal-air type battery cells (with respect to [wrt] Claim 11) and the metal-air type battery cells comprise iron-air type battery cells, zinc-air type battery cells, and/or lithium-air battery cells (wrt Claim 12).
Krish teaches the batteries (Figs. 4-8) comprise metal-air type battery cells and the metal-air type battery cells comprise iron-air type battery cells, zinc-air type battery cells, and/or lithium-air battery cells (abstract, ¶’s [43-45, 71, esp. 45]). Vartak provides evidence that metal air [and in particular zinc air] batteries are easier to produce due to the availability of zinc, safer, easier to handle/store, and are available to work at ambient temperature (¶[05]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Syouda in view of Tyler with Krish to provide improved ease and safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest prior art was found to be:
US-5666041-A
US-5982143-A
US-8541980-B2
US-11349319-B2
US-20100295510-A1
US-20160149421-A1
US-20200303934-A1
US-20230369664-A1
US-20230378772-A1
US-20230396079-A1
US-20240022099-A1
US-20240022103-A1
US-20250007311-A1
US-20250192576-A1
US-20250253697-A1
US-20250253681-A1
US-20250357778-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859