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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 6/27/23 has been considered and placed of record. The initialed copy is attached herewith.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 14-18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchais et al. (US 2022/0224127).
Re claims 1, 17 and 22 the reference discloses a reconfigurable battery pack (fig 2) having, inter alia, a plurality of cell stacks 22A-22B; a plurality of charger ports each adapted to couple to a respective charger 16, the plurality of charger ports including a high voltage charger port 18A and a plurality of low voltage charger ports 18B each corresponding to one of the plurality of cell stacks; a low voltage load port 18B adapted to couple to one or more loads 18B; a plurality of switches 26A-26H corresponding to each cell stack and allowing the cell stacks to be selectively connected for series charging at a relatively higher voltage from the high voltage charger port (para 25; beginning of para 31) and to be selectively connected to the low voltage load port for discharging at a relatively lower voltage (end of para 31); and a battery pack controller 30 that operates the plurality of switches responsive to signals received from at least one of a charger and the plurality of cell stacks. (bolded text is not found in reference). The reference does not disclose having a plurality of low voltage load ports. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included multiple low voltage load ports for adapting to supply power to multiple loads and further, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 22, the method steps performed apparatus limitations of claim 1.
Re claims 4, 8, 14 and 20 the reference does not disclose the cell stacks having a plurality of cells or plural of cell stacks having more than two cell stacks. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a plural of cells/stacks for adaptability to conventional load since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 5, 15 and 16, the reference does not disclose the specific number of cells connected in series and the specific number of cells connected in parallel. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have connected an appropriate number of cells for adaptability to conventional load since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 6 and 18, the reference further discloses the plurality of switches corresponding to each cell stack includes: a high-switch that allows connection of a positive terminal of the cell stack to at least one of a positive terminal of at least one charger port and the positive terminal of at least one load port; a mid-switch in series with the positive terminal of the cell stack, allowing for current through the cell stack to be interrupted; and a low-switch that allows connection of a negative terminal of the cell stack to at least one of a negative terminal of the at least one charger port and the negative terminal of the at least one load port. See at least figure 2.
Re claims 9 and 21, the reference does not disclose having a multi-voltage port. Official notice is taken of the fact that having a port to accommodate multiple voltages would provide power efficiency. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated a multi-voltage port for optimizing performance while providing cost and space saving.
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over Marchais et al. (US 2022/0224127).
Re claim 10, the reference discloses a reconfigurable battery pack having, inter alia, a high voltage charger port 18A adapted to couple to a charger 16; a low voltage load port 18B adapted to couple to one or more loads 18B; a plurality of cell stacks 22A-22B; and a plurality of switches 26A-26H corresponding to each cell stack and allowing the cell stacks to be selectively connected for series charging at a relatively higher voltage from the high voltage charger port (beginning of para 31) and to be selectively connected to the low voltage load port for discharging at a relatively lower voltage (end of para 31). See figure 2.
Re claim 11, the reference further discloses a battery pack controller 30 operating the plurality of switches 26A-26H responsive to the charger and the batteries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 7, 12, 13 and 19 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. The fax number for the organization where this application 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.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087
Prosecution Insights