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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 04/23/2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because claim 4 and claim 12 previously cancelled have been newly identified as (currently amended). Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
The reply filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered however future responses which fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) will be returned as non-compliant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Remarks first contend the new matter identified in the previous action (10/23/25) has been amended to delete the phrase “or more”. In contrast to the Remarks the claims are, in fact, not presented to delete the phrase in question. As such the 112 rejection has not been withdrawn.
Turing to the prior art rejections the claims confusingly recite to different sizing of the battery “two times” and “two or more times”. Applicant should review the present claim submission as it appears the Remarks and the claims set forth differing claim scope. The Remarks (at 10-11) directed to Panfil, Carlson and Steven which are directed to the sizing requirement of the battery suffer from the similar defect as the claims are not amended as the Remarks allege. The prior art rejection is updated below to reflect the present claims as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims have been amended to recite “two or more times a maximum amperage discharge” however the specification recites only two times (paragraph 0054 or 0107 of the publication). The claims therefore present new matter.
The claims further newly recite “a second threshold amount of milliseconds” there is no cited support for said newly added limitation in the Remarks and the disclosure fails to describe a first and second millisecond threshold level. Therefore, the claims present new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims recite the battery storage plant sized in capacity to have sufficient energy for two times a maximum amperage surge and also cite the sizing later in the claim for two or more times a maximum amperage discharge. It is therefore unclear what battery sizing the claim intends.
Further “a second threshold amount of milliseconds” the claim however does not set forth a first threshold amount of millisecond. While the claim recites a threshold in line 3 this corresponds to a power charge not to milliseconds. It is therefore unclear the number of thresholds the claim intends.
Claims 4 and 12 recites the batteries are Silicon-ion based batteries however claims 1 and 9 already sets forth silicon-ion based batteries.
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.
Claim 1, 4, 7-9, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panfil et al. (US 20210249894) in view of Carlson et al. (US 8,193,662) in view of Emert et al. (US 20220224144) in view of Ichimura in view of Mount et al. (US 20080164763)
With respect to claims 1, 4, 12, and 9 Panfil teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a battery energy storage supplemental power platform (30) configured to mitigate power changes exceeding a threshold amount (see paragraph 0053) due to instantaneous (paragraph 0036) change in electrical in-rush currents (paragraph 0035) compared to a steady state electrical current, where the battery energy storage supplemental power platform has a set of batteries making up a battery storage plant (see multiple batteries in Fig .1), a bidirectional power conversion unit (see 26 and 26c), and a set of circuit breakers (see breakers shown in Fig. 1), where the battery storage plant, the bidirectional power conversion unit, and the circuit breakers are electrically interconnected on the battery energy storage supplemental power platform (see battery supplemental subsystem),
an electrical controller (see 26, 28 and 54) configured to control and coordinate (paragraph 0033-36) both i) a discharging of the batteries making up the battery storage plant when the threshold (paragraph 0035) amount of the instantaneous electrical currents compared to the steady state electrical current is sensed and ii) a charging of the batteries (paragraph 0027) making up the battery storage plant when the batteries 1) are not in a mode to discharge and 2) are in a state of being less than fully charged (paragraph 0047), and
where the electrical controller is electrically connected a sensor to sense characteristics (see paragraph 0045) of power coming from a main power source (AC grid or utility), where the electrical controller is configured to discharge the batteries to mitigate (using power from battery) a swing past (drop below paragraph 0035) the threshold amount from the steady state electrical current.
Panfil does not teach the system is responsive to a startup condition. Carlson teaches the known response to startup process (col. 16 lines 35-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil to mitigate startup current for the benefit of supplement as power provided to the loads.
Panfil does not teach remote electrical tap. Carlson teaches a tap and sensor (see 309/308) such arrangements are well known to determined electrical characteristics of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil to include the use a tap and sensor a known means of accurately determining the power to ensure stable power is maintained at the load.
Panfil teaches the electrical interconnection and proximate location however does not teach the battery storage plant, the bidirectional power conversion unit, and the circuit breakers are contained on and electrically interconnected on the battery energy storage supplemental power platform. Emert teaches the known use of a module arrangement (see 110 paragraph 0037-39) the battery storage plant, the bidirectional power conversion unit, and the circuit breakers are contained on and electrically interconnected on the battery energy storage supplemental power platform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil for the benefit of increased scalability.
Panfil further teaches batteries support rapid discharge and recharge and the controller is configured to switch a mode of operation (from charging to discharging) of the battery storage plant, the power conversion unit, and the circuit breakers from being a local source of additional instantaneous electrical power over to a charging mode to replenish energy into and charge batteries.
Panfil does not teach the batteries are silicon ion batteries. Ichimura teaches the known use of silicon-ion (paragraph 0019 abstract) batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil to try the known use of silicon battery chemistry for the predictable result of environment problems (paragraph 0025).
Panfil teaches the inclusion of numerous batteries however does not detail the sizing of the batteries. Mount for example teaches (see table of page 4) known use of UPS system and battery system for supplying sufficient energy for two times a maximum amperage surge. Mount teaches the known use of crest factor of 3:1, such that the UPS can handle current surges of 3 times the RMS current. Mount uses a 8000W at 480V with 9.PF which yields a 10.7 A per phase. Therefore, the peak current of 43A shown in the table is over 4 times the nominal current transients further UPS is sized to output a 300% overload condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Panfil to size a system such as that seen in Mount for the benefit producing a quality power output during power variations (paragraph 0060).
Panfil teaches the batteries for periods of time to provide instantons amperage needed by heavy equipment (see loads) however does not teach an amount of milliseconds. Mount for example teaches the supply of power under heavy for an amount of Mount of milliseconds (see 300% overload for 1 second). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Panfil to supply power for an amount of milliseconds for the benefit of meeting a high transient demand.
With respect to claims 7 and 15 Panfil teaches the bidirectional power conversion unit is an AC to DC (26b) power conversion and DC to AC power conversion unit (26d).
With respect to claims 8 and 16 Panfil teaches the bidirectional power conversion unit is an DC to DC power conversion unit (26c) that is configured to convert from a first steady state DC voltage level to a different second steady state DC voltage level.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panfil et al. (US 20210249894) in view of Carlson et al. (US 8,193,662) in view of Emert et al. (US 20220224144) Ichimura in view of Mount et al. (US 20080164763) in view of Osterman (US 6,617,973)
With respect to claim 2 and 10 Panfil as modified above teaches the platform however does not teach the material used. Osterman teaches a material (col. 4 lines 30-40) to withstand weather and outdoor conditions in a weatherized container as well as dissipate heat from frequent discharging and charging the batteries of the battery storage plant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil for the benefit of increased protection.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panfil et al. (US 20210249894) in view of Carlson et al. (US 8,193,662) in view of Emert et al. (US 20220224144) Ichimura in view of Mount et al. (US 20080164763) in view of Osterman (US 6,617,973) in view of Sweet et al. (US 20210274672)
With respect to claim 3 and 11 Panfil as modified above teaches battery platform however does not teach the use of a skid and wheels. Sweet teaches the known use of a skid (Fig. 3) framework that contains at least attachments to attach wheels (paragraph 0032) to make the battery energy storage supplemental power platform mobile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil to include the use of wheels for the benefit of adjusting the placement.
Claim 5-6 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panfil et al. (US 20210249894) in view of Carlson et al. (US 8,193,662) in view of Emert et al. (US 20220224144) Ichimura in view of Mount et al. (US 20080164763)
With respect to claims 5 and 13 Panfil teaches the platform however does not teach the use of an expansion connection. Emert teaches an expansion connection (paragraph 0041, 122) to allow an additional battery energy storage supplemental power platform to connect electrically in parallel with the battery energy storage supplemental power platform; and thus, be scalable in an amount of capacity over time of its operation by having the expansion connection to add on additional electrical power capacity from the additional battery energy storage supplemental power platform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil to include expansion for the benefit of adapting the size to the needs of the installation.
With respect to claims 6 and 14 Panfil teaches the battery storage system however does not teach the reactor. Emert teaches a line reactor (paragraph 0032) to compensate for and eliminate at least one or more of i) surges, ii) transients, and iii) harmonics issues to an AC voltage level, frequency, and phase of AC voltage occurring in an AC power coming from the main power source from reaching and affecting the electrically connected electrical equipment loads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil to include a reactor to increase reliability of the output power.
Claims 1, 4-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emert et al. (US 20220224144) in view of Carlson et al. (US 8,193,662) in view of Ichimura in view of Mount et al. (US 20080164763)
With respect to claims 1, 4, 9 and 12 Emert teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a battery energy storage supplemental power platform (110) configured to mitigate power changes exceeding a threshold amount (see peak reduction/shaving paragraph 0103 using DESSUPS) due to instantaneous (paragraph 005-7) change in electrical characteristics (voltage amplitude frequency change) compared to a steady state electrical current, where the battery energy storage supplemental power platform has a set of batteries making up a battery storage plant (see multiple batteries in Fig .1), a bidirectional power conversion unit (see Fig. 2), and a set of circuit breakers (see Fig. 2), where the battery storage plant, the bidirectional power conversion unit, and the circuit breakers are electrically interconnected on the battery energy storage supplemental power platform (see battery supplemental subsystem),
an electrical controller (see BESSUPS control Fig. 4) configured to control and coordinate (paragraph 0035) both i) a discharging of the batteries making up the battery storage plant when the threshold (paragraph 0031/103) amount of the instantaneous electrical currents compared to the steady state electrical current is sensed and ii) a charging of the batteries (paragraph 0047) making up the battery storage plant when the batteries 1) are not in a mode to discharge and 2) are in a state of being less than fully charged (paragraph 0114-15), and
where the electrical controller is electrically connected a sensor to sense characteristics (see paragraph 0042) of power coming from a main power source (AC grid or utility), where the electrical controller is configured to discharge the batteries to mitigate (using power from battery) a swing past (paragraph 0005-7) the threshold amount from the steady state electrical current.
Emert teaches the tap and sensor (paragraph 0042) and electrical interconnection and Emert teaches the known use of a module arrangement (see 110 paragraph 0037-39) the battery storage plant, the bidirectional power conversion unit, and the circuit breakers are contained on and electrically interconnected on the battery energy storage supplemental power platform.
Emert does not teach the system is responsive to a startup condition. Carlson teaches the known response to startup process (col. 16 lines 35-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Emert to mitigate startup current for the benefit of supplement as power provided to the loads.
Panfil further teaches batteries support rapid discharge and recharge and the controller is configured to switch a mode of operation (from charging to discharging) of the battery storage plant, the power conversion unit, and the circuit breakers from being a local source of additional instantaneous electrical power over to a charging mode to replenish energy into and charge batteries.
Panfil does not teach the batteries are silicon ion batteries. Ichimura teaches the known use of silicon-ion (paragraph 0019 abstract) batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil to try the known use of silicon battery chemistry for the predictable result of environment problems (paragraph 0025).
Panfil teaches the inclusion of numerous batteries however does not detail the sizing of the batteries. Mount for example teaches (see table of page 4) known use of UPS system and battery system for supplying sufficient energy for two times a maximum amperage surge. Mount teaches the known use of crest factor of 3:1, such that the UPS can handle current surges of 3 times the RMS current. Mount uses a 8000W at 480V with 9.PF which yields a 10.7 A per phase. Therefore, the peak current of 43A shown in the table is over 4 times the nominal current transients further UPS is sized to output a 300% overload condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Panfil to size a system such as that seen in Mount for the benefit producing a quality power output during power variations (paragraph 0060).
Panfil teaches the batteries for periods of time to provide instantons amperage needed by heavy equipment (see loads) however does not teach an amount of milliseconds. Mount for example teaches the supply of power under heavy for an amount of Mount of milliseconds (see 300% overload for 1 second). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Panfil to supply power for an amount of milliseconds for the benefit of meeting a high transient demand.
With respect to claims 5 and 13 Emert teaches an expansion connection (paragraph 0041, 122) to allow an additional battery energy storage supplemental power platform to connect electrically in parallel with the battery energy storage supplemental power platform; and thus, be scalable in an amount of capacity over time of its operation by having the expansion connection to add on additional electrical power capacity from the additional battery energy storage supplemental power platform.
With respect to claims 6 and 14 Emert teaches a line reactor (paragraph 0032) to compensate for and eliminate at least one or more of i) surges, ii) transients, and iii) harmonics issues to an AC voltage level, frequency, and phase of AC voltage occurring in an AC power coming from the main power source from reaching and affecting the electrically connected electrical equipment loads.
With respect to claims 7 and 15 Emert teaches the bidirectional power conversion unit is an AC to DC (see Fig. 2 and 4) power conversion and DC to AC power conversion unit.
With respect to claims 8 and 16 Emert teaches the bidirectional power conversion unit however does not teach the is an DC to DC power conversion unit that is configured to convert from a first steady state DC voltage level to a different second steady state DC voltage level. DC converters as well-known of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify to include a DC converter for ensuring the proper voltage is supplied for ensuring the batteries are sufficiently charge.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emert et al. (US 20220224144) in view of Carlson et al. (US 8,193,662) in view of Ichimura in view of Mount et al. (US 20080164763) in view of in view of Osterman (US 6,617,973)
With respect to claim 2 and 10 Emert as modified above teaches the platform however does not teach the material used. Osterman teaches a material (col. 4 lines 30-40) to withstand weather and outdoor conditions in a weatherized container as well as dissipate heat from frequent discharging and charging the batteries of the battery storage plant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil for the benefit of increased protection.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emert et al. (US 20220224144) in view of Carlson et al. (US 8,193,662) in view of Ichimura in view of Mount et al. (US 20080164763) in view of in view of Osterman (US 6,617,973) in view of Sweet et al. (US 20210274672)
With respect to claim 3 and 11 Emert as modified above teaches battery platform however does not teach the use of a skid and wheels. Sweet teaches the known use of a skid (Fig. 3) framework that contains at least attachments to attach wheels (paragraph 0032) to make the battery energy storage supplemental power platform mobile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Emert to include the use of wheels for the benefit of adjusting the placement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights