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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 161 words long which is over the allowed limit of 150 words. 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(c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the current inflow". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a current inflow” has not been established in any preceding claim. For the purposes of examination “the current inflow” is being interpreted as “a current inflow”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the operation switch". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “an operation switch” has not been established in claim 1 upon which claim 11 is dependent. For the purposes of examination “the operation switch” is being interpreted as “an operation switch”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-9is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (US 10296024 B2 provided in the applicant’s IDS filed 12/19/2024) in view of Takanari et al. (JP 2002358941 A, Translated PDF is provided in the file wrapper).
Regarding claim 1, Morimoto teaches a battery system with a plurality of first terminals and second terminals (fig. 1, components 10A and 10B can be considered as each having an input, or first, terminal as well as an output, or second, terminal). The battery system has a battery module (component 3) that is connected between the first terminals as well as a first and second switch on a discharge path which are present between the first terminals with the second switch being configured to allow or block current flow (FET11 and FET12 in component 10B, column 4, lines 6-9). Further, the battery system comprises a first controller (fig. 1, component 1, column 3 lines 28-30) and the first switch has an FET between the battery module and the second switch as well as a first diode between the ends of the FET (Fig. 1, component FET12 with D2). The first switch is configured to transmit a discharging path through the source-drain path of the first FET if turned on (Fig. 1, if it is turned on there is nowhere else to go except through) as well as transmit the discharge current of the battery module to the discharging path through the first body diode if turned off (column 5, lines 27-31). The first controller is configured such that if a control signal indicating a turned-on state of the first switch is received from an electronic device equipped with the battery system while the second switch is turned on (fig. 2, column 5, lines 19-25), the first controller controls the turn-on/off of the first switch based on a voltage difference (fig. 2 column 5, lines 25-39) between a first voltage measured at a first node between the battery module and the first switch and a second voltage measured at a second node between the second switch and the first terminal (Fig. 1, column 4, lines 36-40 explains that a voltage difference is measured). Morimoto is silent to a plurality of battery packs connected in parallel. Takanari teaches a battery system with FET switches where there is a plurality of secondary batteries connected in parallel in order to obtain a predetermined battery capacity (Takanari 0009, figs. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery system of Morimoto and modify the single battery pack to be a plurality of battery packs connected in parallel as taught in Takanari in order to increase the overall battery capacity as desired.
PNG
media_image1.png
439
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Morimoto in view of Takanari teaches claim 1 as described above and Morimoto further teaches that closing the switches blocks the current (Morimoto column 4, lines 6-9).
Regarding claims 7-9, Morimoto in view of Takanari teaches claim 1 as described above and Morimoto further teaches that the first controller controls the opening and closing of the switches in a variety of ways including maintaining and controlling the first switch in an off state until the voltage difference between the second voltage and the first voltage is less than the predetermined value, and the first switch to be in an on state if the voltage difference between the second voltage and the first voltage is less than the predetermined value (Morimoto column 5, line 19-39).
Claim(s) 2-5, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (US 10296024 B2 provided in the applicant’s IDS filed 12/19/2024) in view of Takanari et al. (JP 2002358941 A, Translated PDF is provided in the file wrapper) and further in view Nagai et al. (Patent number 5783322, provided in the applicant’s IDS filed 12/19/2024).
Regarding claim 2, Morimoto in view of Takanari teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to a second controller by an operation switch. Nagai teaches a battery system with FET switches where there is an external signal detecting device (a controller) that receives a signal from a load apparatus and controls an operation switch to change position in response (Nagai Fig. 2, column 5, lines 8-56). If the operation switch is on, switches 1 and 2 can be on, if the operation switch is off, switches 1 and 2 can be off. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery system of modified Morimoto as described in claim 1 and further add the operation switch and second controller as taught by Nagai in order to have more control over the circuit.
Regarding claim 3, Morimoto in view of Takanari and Nagai teaches claim 2 as described above and Nagai further teaches that when the operation switch is on, either the first or second switch is on, and the other is off (Nagai column 5, lines 18-23) meaning the current travels through the diode of the off switch (Morimoto column 5, lines 27-31) and the FET of the on switch in order to wake up the second controller.
Regarding claim 4, Morimoto in view of Takanari and Nagai teaches claim 3 as described above and Nagai further teaches that the control units are in communication with each other (Nagai fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Morimoto in view of Takanari and Nagai teaches claim 2 as described above and Morimoto further teaches the second switch has an FET between the battery module and the second switch as well as a second diode between the ends of the FET (Morimoto Fig. 1, component FET11 with D1). The second switch is configured to transmit a discharging path through the source-drain path of the second FET if turned on (Morimoto Fig. 1, if it is turned on there is nowhere else to go except through) as well as transmit the discharge current of the battery module to the discharging path through the second body diode if turned off (Morimoto Fig. 1, column 4, lines 10-11, FET 11 and 12 are the same, column 5, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 11, Morimoto in view of Takanari teach claim 1 as described above but are silent to an operation switch. Nagai teaches an operation switch as described in claim 2 which is dependent upon claim 1 and necessarily limits it. As a more limited version of claim 1 can successfully have the operation switch, then claim 1 can have the same operation switch as it is described in claim 2. the operation switch of Nagai is between the battery system and the load as described above regarding claim 2 and the second controller, which is an external-signal detecting circuit directly connected to the operation switch meaning the switch, is necessarily between the source of the external signal, the load, and the final destination of the signal, the battery system.
Regarding claims 12-15, Morimoto in view of Takanari and Nagai teaches claims 2-5 respectively as described above and the operation switch is between the battery system and the load as described above regarding claim 2 and the second controller, which is an external-signal detecting circuit directly connected to the operation switch meaning the switch is necessarily between the source of the external signal, the load, and the final destination of the signal, the battery system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (US 10296024 B2, provided in the applicant’s IDS filed 12/19/2024) in view of Takanari et al. (JP 2002358941 A, Translated PDF is provided in the file wrapper) and further in view of (Koichi et al. (WO 2012147598 A1, translated PDF is provided in the file wrapper).
Regarding claim 10, Morimoto in view of Takanari teaches claim 1 as described above which has a plurality of second terminals and a plurality of battery packs in parallel between the second terminals, but is silent to a third switch to transmit a charge current. Koichi teaches a battery system with switches, including a third switch between the battery and a second terminal that is on during charging to allow the current through, and off during discharging to block the current through that path. This switch helps properly balance a charging state so as to not over-charge or over-discharge. (Koichi fig. 3a and 3b, page 8 paragraph 4 and 5 of the provided PDF). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery system of modified Morimoto and further add a switch to control the charging current in order to properly balance the charging state as taught by Koichi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights