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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5: “the command value” lacks antecedent basis. Emend to “a command value”.
Further, to improve clarity, emend
“the control device increases the predetermined range, and increases an absolute value of each of the upper limit and the lower limit, as the command value of the power command increases.”
With
“the control device increases both (a) the predetermined range, and (b) increases an absolute value of each of the upper limit and the lower limit, as the command value of the power command increases.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Functional limitations of Claims 1-5, i.e.
the control device performing first voltage control in accordance with a first voltage command in the first battery unit, and performing power control in accordance with a power command in the second battery unit, setting a limit value for a change in electric power in the first voltage control, and when a difference between an output voltage value and a command voltage value exceeds a predetermined range, performing second voltage control in accordance with a second voltage command in the second battery unit.
the predetermined range based on a command value of the power command.
the control device increases the predetermined range as the command value of the power command increases.
the control device sets the limit value by setting an upper limit and a lower limit on an amount of change in current value in the first voltage control.
increases the predetermined range, and increases an absolute value of each of the upper limit and the lower limit, as the command value of the power command increases.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al (USPGPN 20090315392; hereinafter Ichi) in view of Iwata et al (USPGPN 20080192519)
Independent Claim 1, Ichi teaches a power supply system (Figs. [1, 2, 6, 8]) comprising:
a plurality of battery units connected to a load in parallel with each other and each including a battery and a converter (Figs. [1, 8]); and
a control device that controls each of the plurality of battery units (#2 & 4 in Fig. 8, Fig. 6, 2 & 4 in Fig. 1),
the plurality of battery units including a first battery unit and a second battery unit (see esp. Figs. [1, 8]), and
the control device performing first voltage control (control via [36/46], ¶’s [89-93, 95, 97]) in accordance with a first voltage command in the first battery unit, and performing power control in accordance with a power command (via [34, 44, 50], ¶’s [89-91, 93, 94, 97) in the second battery unit (Figs. [5A-7]),
setting a limit value for a change in electric power in the first voltage control (s106 of Fig. 7 of Figs. [5A-7]), and
when a difference between an output value and a command value exceeds a predetermined range (36 & 46 are shown to demonstrate the difference values in light of command from 50, range of the fluctuation allowed values), performing second voltage control in accordance with a second voltage command in the second battery unit (Figs. [5A-7] has the second converter compensating for the first converter when the command is beyond a range of the prescribed threshold value;
noted that Vh and VL’s difference in 36/46 represents the difference in voltage values).
Ichi fails to explicitly teach when a difference between an output voltage value and a command voltage value exceeds a predetermined value, performing second voltage control in accordance with a second voltage command in the second battery unit.
Iwata teaches when a difference between an output voltage value and a command voltage value exceeds a predetermined value, performing second voltage control in accordance with a second voltage command in the second battery unit (¶’s [58, 97, 103] in light of Fig. 1, where the converters are in parallel with each other analogous to Ichi and the present application; describes voltages V1B, V2B, V3B, i.e. voltage control). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by off-setting/compensating a converter with another to reach the desired output characteristics, it serves to improve the reliability of the system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichi with Iwata to provide improved reliability.
Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Ichi and Iwata teaches the control device sets the limit value by setting an upper limit and a lower limit on an amount of change in current value in the first voltage control (the range of the prescribed threshold value for the fluctuation is the upper and lower limits in Ichi meets this requirement)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichi in view of Iwata, further in view of Tsuno et al (USPGPN 20240322564)
Dependent Claim 2, Ichi teaches the predetermined range (as explained above, the fluctuations and the threshold, along with the power command).
Ichi is silent to adjustment of a discharge predetermined value based on a command value of a power command.
Tsuno teaches adjustment of a discharge predetermined value based on a command value of a power command (¶’s [104-107], discharge threshold is changed based on power command sent to a converter, see analogous structure of Fig. 1; Tsuno teaches this provides improved minute control (i.e. precise control), ¶’s [104, 107])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichi in view of Iwata with Tsuno to provide improved precise control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For Claims 3 and 5, the prior art teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 2, and 4; the prior art fails to teach the further inclusion of and combination with the control device increases the predetermined range as the command value of the power command increases (with respect to [wrt] Claim 3) and the control device increases the predetermined range, and increases an absolute value of each of the upper limit and the lower limit, as the command value of the power command increases (wrt Claim 5).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights