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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Species A in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that all of the pending claims are directed to similar subject matter and that all claims are directed to a ring network formed by a plurality of air conditioners.
This is not found persuasive because, as stated in the Restriction Requirement, since Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use, the inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h).
While both inventions are related to a ring network formed by a plurality of air conditioners, the process of Invention II is able to be practiced with another materially different product that the product of Invention I.
Invention II is able to be practiced with a product such as one that does not require the air conditioners to be evenly distributed in at least one of a door body or side wall of the energy storage container or does not require a plurality of battery clusters sequentially arranged along a length direction of the energy storage container.
Therefore, since Invention II can be practiced with another materially different product, the inventions are distinct.
Applicant also notes that Species A is encompassed by both Fig. 3A and Fig. 3B. The Examiner notes the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed 07/01/2026 states Species A was described in Applicant’s filed specification in at least P79-92 and Fig. 3B.
The Examiner acknowledges Species A is encompassed by both Fig. 3A and Fig. 3B while Species B is encompassed by Fig. 4.
As set forth in the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed 07/01/2026, Species A is an embodiment wherein a quantity of air conditioners is at least twice a quantity of battery clusters, and each battery cluster corresponds to at least two air conditioners while Species B is an embodiment wherein a quantity of air conditioners is equal to a quantity of air conditioners and the battery clusters are in a one-on-one correspondence with the air conditioners
The species are independent or distinct because Species A and Species B are drawn to different variations of an energy storage container.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
In regards to the election of Invention I, Applicant states claims 19-20 would be withdrawn (Response to Election / Restriction Filed Page 1).
In regards to the election of Species A, Applicant states claim 4 would be withdrawn (Response to Election / Restriction Filed Page 2).
The Examiner notes that claims 5-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17-18 depend from claim 4. Therefore, they would also be withdrawn alongside claim 4.
Claims 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17-18 (drawn to non-elected Species B) and claims 19-20 (drawn to non-elected Invention II) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8, thus dependent claims 10, 12, 14, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A states:
“In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
…
a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
The claims recite mental steps of receiving an air exhaust vent temperature instruction value based on a charge/discharge rate of a battery cluster and obtaining an air exhaust vent temperature reference value based on the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because all of the steps can all be practically performed by the human mind (collecting/analyzing/comparing known information and displaying results of collection and analysis).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim limitations do not extend beyond collecting/analyzing one value (air exhaust vent temperature instruction value) and obtaining/displaying results of another value (air exhaust vent temperature reference value) upon collecting/analyzing said one value, which can be wholly accomplished by the human mind.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brown et al (WO2019075293A1, as given in the 01/13/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses an energy storage container (container 102 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P29), comprising:
a plurality of air conditioners evenly distributed in at least one of a door body or a side wall of the energy storage container (fans 150 in Fig. 2; the fans appear to be in the top wall of the container 102 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P29);
a plurality of battery clusters sequentially arranged along a length direction of the energy storage container (battery module strings 115 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P29),
air exhaust vents of the plurality of air conditioners each face a corresponding battery cluster (see Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P29, 32), and
each of the plurality of air conditioners is configured to dissipate heat for a corresponding battery cluster (see entire disclosure and especially P29, 32); and
a container controller configured to jointly control the plurality of air conditioners to adjust internal temperature of the energy storage container (container temperature controller 212 in Fig. 3; see entire disclosure and especially P32).
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronke et al (US 20170077467 A1) in view of Wei (CN103900188A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Kronke discloses an energy storage container (modular energy storage system 100 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P26), comprising:
a plurality of air conditioners evenly distributed in at least one of a door body or a side wall of the energy storage container (cooling devices 131 that are each provided in a single door assembly 130 of the two pairs of door assemblies 130 in Figs. 1-2 and 4; the examiner notes each pair of door assemblies 130 can be interpreted as making up a “side wall” of the energy storage container; the two cooling devices 131 provided to each pair of door assemblies 130 are drawn to the plurality of air conditioners as the two cooling devices are evenly distributed in each pair of door assemblies and can be an air conditioning unit; see entire disclosure and especially P28, 32-33);
a plurality of battery clusters (racks 201 including a plurality of energy storage devices 200 in Figs. 1 and 4; see entire disclosure and especially P30),
air exhaust vents of the plurality of air conditioners each face a corresponding battery cluster (air outlet 131d in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P32-33), and
each of the plurality of air conditioners is configured to dissipate heat for a corresponding battery cluster (see entire disclosure and especially P30, 32, 47); and
a container controller configured to control the plurality of air conditioners to adjust internal temperature of the energy storage container (power conversion assembly 600 can include the control system 800 to provide electronic control of the cooling devices 131 in Fig. 7; see entire disclosure and especially P47, 52).
Kronke discloses the plurality of battery clusters are in a form of one cluster spaced apart from another cluster arranged along a width of the energy storage container (see Fig. 1, Kronke discloses the racks are arranged to define two parallel rows spaced apart from one another; see entire disclosure and especially P30). Kronke does not disclose a plurality of battery clusters also being arranged along a length direction of the energy storage container (for example, such that the two parallel rows spaced apart from one another include two racks each rather than one rack each).
However, this is merely duplicating the energy storage container of Kronke and integrating the two energy storage containers together into a single energy storage container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the energy storage container of Kronke and integrated the two energy storage containers together into a single energy storage container in order to, for example, provide an energy storage container with increased energy capacity (kWh) while still being able to cool each of the plurality of racks hosting the energy storage devices, because the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04)) and the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04)).
The Examiner interprets this modification to look something similar to the figure provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
621
1072
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s interpretation of modified Kronke
Therefore, modified Kronke would meet the limitation wherein a plurality of battery clusters are sequentially arranged along a length direction of the energy storage container (there are 2 battery clusters/racks of energy storage devices sequentially arranged along a length direction in each row).
However, modified Kronke does not meet the limitation wherein the container controller jointly controls the plurality of air conditioners.
Wei teaches a common way to cool down shipping containers is to install an air conditioning system inside the container, but while the air conditioning system can provide cool airflow to cool servers inside the container, it consumes a lot of electricity (P3). Wei teaches it is necessary to provide a container air conditioning control system and control method to ensure that the container air conditioning system can properly dissipate heat from the server in the container while reducing the power consumption of the air conditioning system (P6).
Wei teaches a conditioner air conditioning control system applied to a container including several air conditioners (P7).
Wei teaches a container (100 in Fig. 1) includes several cabinets (10 in Fig. 1), several servers (20 in Fig. 1) located in each cabinet, and an air conditioning system (30 in Fig. 1) including several air conditioners (32 in Fig. 1) to dissipate heat from the servers (P18).
Wei teaches a container air conditioning control system (200 in Fig. 2) is applied inside the container to control the operation of the air conditioning system according to the environmental parameters of the container, so as to reduce the power consumption of the air conditioning system while ensuring that the air conditioning system can properly dissipate heat from the server (P19). Wei teaches the system can include an environmental parameter acquisition module (202 in Fig. 2), an environmental parameter comparison module (204 in Fig. 2), an air conditioning return air temperature comparison module (206 in Fig. 2), and a control module (208 in Fig. 2; P19).
Wei teaches the control module is used to switch the current mode of the air conditioner with the lowest return air temperature to the air supply mode, increase the speed of the air conditioner with the lowest return air temperature, and decrease the speed of other air conditioners when the acquired environmental parameter value is less than or equal to any value in the preset range (P23). Wei teaches the control module is also used to switch the current mode of all air conditioners to cooling mode and increase the speed of all air conditioners when the acquired environmental parameter value is greater than the maximum value in the preset range (P23). Wei teaches when the acquired environmental parameter value is less than or equal to any value in the preset range, it means that the heat discharged by container is not high, and when the heat discharged by container is not high, if the return air temperature of an air conditioner is 22-relatively low, it means that the heat discharged by server which relies on air conditioner for heat dissipation is not high (P23). Therefore, Wei teaches the current mode of air conditioner can be adjusted to air supply mode, and the speed of other air conditioners can be reduced to reduce the power consumption of air conditioning system (P23).
Wei also teaches the container will sound an alarm if the temperature inside the container is too high or if the container consumes too much power; therefore, in this embodiment, the control module is also used to switch the current mode of all air conditioners to cooling mode and increase the speed of all air conditioners when the container issues an alarm, so as to prevent the container from suddenly losing power and affecting the operation of the server (P24).
While Wei is drawn to using their container air conditioning control system for controlling air conditioners in relation to servers rather than battery clusters, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, like servers, battery clusters in an energy storage container would emit heat and the container would have fluctuating environmental parameters. Therefore, an energy storage container hosting battery clusters and air conditioners would also need a system and method to ensure that heat is properly dissipated while reducing the electricity/power consumption of the air conditioners. If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize a system and method to ensure that heat is properly dissipated from servers in a container while reducing the electricity/power consumption of the air conditioners in the container), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize a system and method to ensure that heat is properly dissipated from battery clusters in a container while reducing the electricity/power consumption of the air conditioners in the container), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. See MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wei and modified the controller of Kronke to jointly control the plurality of air conditioners, such as applying/using the container air conditioning control system of Wei as the controller of Kronke, given Wei teaches their system can ensure heat is properly dissipated while reducing the electricity/power consumption of the air conditioners.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kronke meets the limitation wherein the plurality of battery clusters is disposed in the following two rows along the length direction of the energy storage container: a first row of battery clusters and a second row of battery clusters; the first row of battery clusters corresponds to a first side wall in the length direction of the energy storage container, and the second row of battery clusters corresponds to a second side wall in the length direction of the energy storage container; and the plurality of air conditioners is evenly disposed on the first side wall and the second side wall (see the rejection of claim 1 above, the examiner’s interpretation of modified Kronke in the rejection of claim 1 above, and the examiner’s interpretation of modified Kronke provided below).
PNG
media_image2.png
685
1126
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Interpretation of modified Kronke
Regarding claim 3, modified Kronke meets the limitation wherein a quantity of air conditioners is at least twice a quantity of battery clusters, and each battery cluster corresponds to at least two air conditioners (see Kronke Fig. 1 wherein a single rack 201 including a plurality of energy storage devices 200 corresponds to the two cooling devices 131 of the two pairs of door assemblies 130; see also the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronke et al (US 20170077467 A1) in view of Wei (CN103900188A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Yamauchi (JPH1064598A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) and Ko (US 20180170207 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kronke includes a container controller configured to jointly control the plurality of air conditioners to adjust internal temperature of the energy storage container (modified Kronke utilizes the container air conditioning control system of Wei as the container controller of Kronke).
The container controller of modified Kronke is not explicitly taught to be configured to: receive an air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T sent by a server and obtain an air exhaust vent temperature reference value based on the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T; and the server obtains the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T based on a charge/discharge rate of a battery cluster corresponding to the container controller.
However, Wei teaches their container air conditioning control system can acquire an environmental parameter value and adjust the air conditioners conditions/actions accordingly (Wei P23).
Further, Yamauchi teaches a current sensor can be provided in a charging and discharging path of a battery and the current sensor can be connected to a control device (P43). Yamauchi teaches the control device can control a cooling fan in the electric vehicle based on unput information from the current sensor (P43-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Yamauchi and provided current sensors in each of the plurality of battery clusters to send a charge/discharge rate of each of the plurality of battery clusters to the container controller, given Yamauchi teaches this can allow for a cooling device, such as a cooling fan (or in modified Kronke’s case, an air conditioner), to be adjusted based on the charge/discharge rate of corresponding batteries.
Further, Ko teaches a vehicle can include a communicator and a controller (P98). Ko teaches the communicator can perform communication with a power network server (P99). Ko teaches the controller can collect and send information about at least one of energy consumption of a battery, a temperature of the battery, and the ambient temperature to the power network server, and manage the condition of the battery according to a battery control signal sent from the power network server (P113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ko and provided a communicator to the energy storage container of modified Kronke and provided a server that communicates with the container controller of modified Kronke to provide a control instruction/signal for managing the plurality of air conditioners, given Ko teaches it is known for a controller to communicate with a server via a communicator such that the controller can send information to the server and receive control signals/instructions from the server to manage a device. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding the limitation wherein “the container controller is further configured to: receive an air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T sent by a server and obtain an air exhaust vent temperature reference value based on the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T; and the server obtains the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T based on a charge/discharge rate of a battery cluster corresponding to the container controller”:
The container controller of modified Kronke is able to receive a charge/discharge rate of a battery cluster corresponding to the container controller and adjust the plurality of air conditioners accordingly. Further, the container controller of modified Kronke is able to communicate with a server in order to send information or receive control signals/instructions from the server in order to manage the air conditioners. Therefore, the container controller and server of modified Kronke is capable of being configured to or performing the limitations of receiving an air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T sent by a server and obtaining an air exhaust vent temperature reference value based on the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T, wherein the server obtains the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T based on a charge/discharge rate of a battery cluster corresponding to the container controller. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Furthermore, modified Kronke includes all of the positively recited structure of the claimed energy storage container. Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronke et al (US 20170077467 A1) in view of Wei (CN103900188A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Yamauchi (JPH1064598A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) and Ko (US 20180170207 A1) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Bale et al (US 20160036626 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kronke does not meet the limitation wherein the container controller is further configured to: when all of the plurality of the air conditioners are normal, send the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T as the air exhaust vent temperature reference value to each of the plurality of air conditioners through a ring network based on an identity document (ID).
Bale teaches a process control system includes process elements that can perform a wide variety of functions and controllers coupled to the process elements to control operation of the process elements (P15-16). Bale teaches the controllers can receive measurements from sensors and generate control signals for actuators (P16).
Bale teaches a controller system including a plurality of controllers for controlling different devices (P33). Bale teaches the controller system can also include a server coupled to the controllers (P35). Bale teaches the controller system can be coupled to a controlled network including a number of controlled devices that are controlled by the controllers (P36-37). Bale teaches certain devices among the controlled network can be organized into sub-networks, and the controlled devices can be configured as a ring network (P37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Bale and provided wherein the plurality of air conditioners are configured as a ring network, given Bale teaches configuring devices in a ring network is a way in which a controller system can be coupled to a number of controlled devices. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
Regarding the limitation wherein “wherein the container controller is further configured to: when all of the plurality of the air conditioners are normal, send the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T as the air exhaust vent temperature reference value to each of the plurality of air conditioners through a ring network based on an identity document (ID)”:
The container controller of modified Kronke is able to receive a charge/discharge rate of a battery cluster corresponding to the container controller and adjust the plurality of air conditioners accordingly. Further, the container controller of modified Kronke is able to communicate with a server in order to send information or receive control signals/instructions from the server in order to manage the air conditioners. Even further, the plurality of air conditioners of modified Kronke are configured as a ring network. Therefore, the container controller of modified Kronke is capable of being configured to or performing the limitations of, when all of the plurality of the air conditioners are normal, sending the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T as the air exhaust vent temperature reference value to each of the plurality of air conditioners through a ring network based on an identity document (ID). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Furthermore, modified Kronke includes all of the positively recited structure of the claimed energy storage container. Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation “wherein the plurality of air conditioners are n air conditioners, m air conditioners fail, n is an integer greater than or equal to 2, and m is an integer less than or equal to n; and the container controller further allocates a corresponding air exhaust vent temperature reference value δᵢ x T to n-m normal air conditioners based on the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T, and sends, to a corresponding air conditioner through a ring network based on the ID, the air exhaust vent temperature reference value δᵢ x T allocated to the n-m normal air conditioners, wherein i=1, ..., n-m, δᵢ is a preset cooling coefficient of an iᵗʰ air conditioner, 0 < δᵢ ≤ 11, a shorter distance between the iᵗʰ air conditioner and the failed air conditioner indicates a smaller δᵢ, and a longer distance between the iᵗʰ air conditioner and the failed air conditioner indicates a larger δᵢ”:
Bale teaches a process control system includes process elements that can perform a wide variety of functions and controllers coupled to the process elements to control operation of the process elements (P15-16). Bale teaches the controllers can receive measurements from sensors and generate control signals for actuators (P16).
Bale teaches a controller system including a plurality of controllers for controlling different devices (P33). Bale teaches the controller system can also include a server coupled to the controllers (P35). Bale teaches the controller system can be coupled to a controlled network including a number of controlled devices that are controlled by the controllers (P36-37). Bale teaches certain devices among the controlled network can be organized into sub-networks, and the controlled devices can be configured as a ring network (P37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Bale and provided wherein the plurality of air conditioners are configured as a ring network, given Bale teaches configuring devices in a ring network is a way in which a controller system can be coupled to a number of controlled devices. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
The container controller of modified Kronke is able to receive a charge/discharge rate of a battery cluster corresponding to the container controller and adjust the plurality of air conditioners accordingly. Further, the container controller of modified Kronke is able to communicate with a server in order to send information or receive control signals/instructions from the server in order to manage the air conditioners. Even further, the plurality of air conditioners of modified Kronke are configured as a ring network. Therefore, the container controller of modified Kronke is capable of being configured to or performing the limitations of, when the plurality of air conditioners are n air conditioners, m air conditioners fail, n is an integer greater than or equal to 2, and m is an integer less than or equal to n, allocating a corresponding air exhaust vent temperature reference value δᵢ x T to n-m normal air conditioners based on the air exhaust vent temperature instruction value T, and sending, to a corresponding air conditioner through a ring network based on the ID, the air exhaust vent temperature reference value δᵢ x T allocated to the n-m normal air conditioners, wherein i=1, ..., n-m, δᵢ is a preset cooling coefficient of an iᵗʰ air conditioner, 0 < δᵢ ≤ 11, a shorter distance between the iᵗʰ air conditioner and the failed air conditioner indicates a smaller δᵢ, and a longer distance between the iᵗʰ air conditioner and the failed air conditioner indicates a larger δᵢ. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Furthermore, modified Kronke includes all of the positively recited structure of the claimed energy storage container. Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronke et al (US 20170077467 A1) in view of Wei (CN103900188A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Yamauchi (JPH1064598A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) and Ko (US 20180170207 A1) in view of Bale et al (US 20160036626 A1) as applied to claim 12, further in view of Ono (US 20190257541 A1).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation “wherein each air conditioner of the plurality of air conditioners enters a safe operation mode when the air conditioner receives no air exhaust vent temperature reference value within a preset time period, wherein in the safe operation mode, the air conditioner operates for predetermined time based on an air exhaust vent temperature reference value received last time, or operates for the predetermined time based on a preset temperature reference value”:
Ono teaches an air conditioner includes a main control unit, and a motor-driving control unit (Abstract). Ono teaches the main control unit transmits, at every first time, an instruction for rotating the motor to the motor-driving control unit (Abstract). Ono teaches the motor-driving control unit outputs, on the basis of the instruction, an instruction for rotating the motor to the inverter output unit (Abstract). Ono teaches when the motor-driving control unit does not receive a new instruction for rotating the motor from the main control unit before the first time elapses from a time when the motor-driving control unit receives the instruction for rotating the motor from the main control unit last, the motor-driving control unit outputs an instruction for continuing operation based on the instruction for rotating the motor received from the main control unit at an immediately preceding time to the inverter output unit (Abstract, P22).
Ono teaches this allows an air conditioner to continue operation even if communication between a main control unit and a motor-driving control unit becomes abnormal (P5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ono and provided wherein each air conditioner of the plurality of air conditioners enters a mode to continue operating based on a previous value sent from the container controller even after receiving no new value from the container controller, given Ono teaches this can allow an air conditioner to continue operation even if communication between control units becomes abnormal.
The container controller of modified Kronke is able to receive a charge/discharge rate of a battery cluster corresponding to the container controller and adjust the plurality of air conditioners accordingly. Further, the container controller of modified Kronke is able to communicate with a server in order to send information or receive control signals/instructions from the server in order to manage the air conditioners. Even further, the plurality of air conditioners of modified Kronke are configured as a ring network. Even further, the air conditioners of modified Kronke are able to enter a mode to continue operating based on a previous value sent from the container controller even after receiving no new value from the container controller. Therefore, each of the plurality of air conditioners of modified Kronke are capable of being configured to or performing the limitations of, entering a safe operation mode when an air conditioner receives no air exhaust vent temperature reference value within a preset time period, wherein in the safe operation mode, the air conditioner operates for predetermined time based on an air exhaust vent temperature reference value received last time. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Furthermore, modified Kronke includes all of the positively recited structure of the claimed energy storage container. Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kronke meets the limitation wherein the plurality of air conditioners forms at least one ring network, each of the plurality of air conditioners is a node in the ring network, and each node has the ID (given the modification of modified Kronke by Bale set forth wherein the plurality of air conditioners are configured as a ring network).
The container controller of modified Kronke is able to receive a charge/discharge rate of a battery cluster corresponding to the container controller and adjust the plurality of air conditioners accordingly. Further, the container controller of modified Kronke is able to communicate with a server in order to send information or receive control signals/instructions from the server in order to manage the air conditioners. Even further, the plurality of air conditioners of modified Kronke are configured as a ring network. Even further, the air conditioners of modified Kronke are able to enter a mode to continue operating based on a previous value sent from the container controller even after receiving no new value from the container controller. Therefore, the container controller of modified Kronke is capable of being configured to or performing the limitations of, sending the air exhaust vent temperature reference value to a corresponding air conditioner through the ring network based on the ID. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Furthermore, modified Kronke includes all of the positively recited structure of the claimed energy storage container. Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
