DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 2013/03/16, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2023/12/20 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Circuit Assembly and Method for Coordinated Charge Balancing and Temperature Equalization of DC Voltage Sources.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
it is written as a colon/semicolon-delimited list, substantially copying the language of claim 1.
it addresses only the claimed method, being silent as to the independently claimed circuit assembly (claim 10) and power supply system (claim 13)
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(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶[0003] misattributes the circuit-assembly description to "the preamble of claim 11" — it should read claim 10 (claim 11 is the cascade dependent claim, not the base circuit assembly).
¶[0024] states the "computer program" object is "achieved by the features of claim 10". Claim 10, however, is the circuit assembly. No pending claim covers the computer program aspect described at ¶s [0002, 0021, 0071–0074].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 claim(s) contains 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.
Claim 5 reads on temperature values that are both approximated and sensor-detected. The specification treats these as separate categories (¶[0056]: sensor-detected values "and/or" modeled/approximated values) and discloses no sensor that outputs an approximate value.
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 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 14 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the following claims:
Claims 3, 7 recites the limitation " the charge removal". Neither claim 3 nor 7 establishes "charge removal" before referring to it with a definite article.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the interconnection of the DC voltage sources". No antecedent form of "interconnect" appears earlier in claim 10, though "the interconnection" is used three times. Claims 11–14 inherit this defect by dependency.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the input-side interface". Claim 13's parent, claim 10, recites only an output-side interface. No input-side interface appears anywhere in the chain.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "power supply assembly". Claim 14’s parent, claim 13, introduces a "power supply system," not a "power supply assembly"; the mismatched terms leave "power supply assembly" without an antecedent.
In re claims 4, 9, the term “essentially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Neither the claims nor the specification draws a line between "essentially" and "only" active/reactive-power balancing, leaving the "essentially" alternative's scope undefined.
In re claims 1 – 2, 5 – 6, 10, the phrases
"such that... each may influence..." (claims 1, 10),
"can be connected" (claim 2),
"can be used" (claim 5),
"can be taken into account" (claim 6)
render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the coordination described therein is required to be performed, or is merely optional or permissive.
As to claims 1, 10, both claims recite mandatory steps/connections earlier in the claim, yet close with permissive "may" language addressing that same coordination, leaving it unclear whether the claimed method or arrangement actually requires the coordination to occur, or whether it is merely a possible, non-limiting effect.
As to claims 2, 5 – 6, other steps are recited in mandatory form, while these phrases use "can be" language for the same category of action, leaving it unclear whether the connection is actually required by the claimed method.
See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 6, 10 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGER et al. (US 2023/0353035 A1), in view of GRAOVAC et al. (US 2011/0198936 A1).
In re claim 1, SINGER discloses a method for generating an alternating voltage by interconnecting a plurality of DC voltage sources (FIG. 1; Claim 1: MMC 100 with converter modules 110, 120, 130, 140, each including battery 112, 122, 132, 142), comprising at least the following method steps:
detecting temperature differences between the DC voltage sources (¶[0028]; Claim 6: controller individually operates a converter module based on the temperature value of its battery; first battery having a temperature value lower than a second battery's temperature value); and
taking the detected temperature differences into account during the interconnection of the DC voltage sources to carry out temperature equalization (¶[0028]: controller sets switching circuit first-state and second-state durations based on the temperature value of its battery), such that the detected temperature differences and the detected charge differences each may influence the interconnection of the DC voltage sources in order to provide a coordination of charge balancing and temperature equalization (¶s [0052 – 0053]: MMC alternates between a temperature-based mode and a charge-balancing mode, with charge balancing interrupted for temperature balancing and resumed in states of low power requirement).
SINGER does not expressly disclose detecting charge differences of the DC voltage sources or taking the detected charge differences into account during the interconnection of the DC voltage sources to carry out charge balancing.
GRAOVAC teaches a method comprising:
detecting charge differences of the DC voltage sources (¶[0066]: control circuit 20 measures voltages V1', V2', Vn' across the charge storage units to determine the charging state of each); and
taking the detected charge differences into account during the interconnection of the DC voltage sources to carry out charge balancing (¶[0064]: duty-cycle parameter sets assigned to converter stages dependent on each stage's own detected charging state).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine GRAOVAC's charging-state-dependent duty-cycle assignment to SINGER's individually-operated converter modules in order to prevent individual batteries from being driven to unsafe overcharge or overdischarge conditions during the modular multilevel converter's temperature-based switching operation.
In re claims 2, 5 – 6, SINGER discloses wherein the DC voltage sources can be connected to one another in a configurable series circuit (¶[0075]: first module port of a first converter module connected to the first converter port, further modules connected in series to a preceding module's second port, forming the series connection) in order to generate the alternating voltage by means of a staircase-shaped approximation (FIG. 5; ¶[0092]: stepped curve 512 is the approximated multilevel converter output voltage).
As to claim 5, SINGER further discloses wherein to detect the temperature differences between the DC voltage sources (temperature sensor 113, 123, 133, 143 of each converter module), a combination of temperature values and approximate temperature values detected by sensors can be used (¶s [0037 – 0038]: temperature values interpolated and/or extrapolated for sensors having no batteries, using a physical model of the batteries' mass, volume, thermal resistance and thermal inertia).
As to claim 6, SINGER further discloses wherein currently detected temperature differences and expected future temperature differences, predicted based on a thermal model (¶[0038]: physical model incorporating the batteries' mass, volume, thermal resistance and thermal inertia, used to model temperature developments over time), can be taken into account during the temperature equalization (¶[0028]: controller individually operates the converter module based on the temperature value of its battery).
In re claim 10, SINGER discloses a circuit assembly for generating an alternating voltage from a plurality of DC voltage sources (FIG. 1; Claim 1: MMC 100 with converter modules 110, 120, 130, 140, each including battery 112, 122, 132, 142), comprising:
an output-side interface for providing the generated AC voltage (FIG. 1; ¶[0075]: first converter port 101 and second converter port 102);
at least one inverter unit for generating and providing the AC voltage at the output-side interface from respective DC voltages of DC voltage sources that can be connected to the at least one inverter unit (FIG. 1; ¶s [0075, 0078]: switching circuit 111, 121, 131, 141 of each converter module generating the AC output voltage from the DC voltage of its connected battery 112, 122, 132, 142); and
a temperature equalization unit for detecting and equalizing temperature differences between the DC voltage sources (¶s [0028, 0079]: temperature sensor 113, 123, 133, 143 and controller individually operating each converter module based on its battery's temperature value), wherein the temperature equalization unit is communicatively connected to the at least one inverter unit in order to influence the interconnection of the DC voltage sources for the temperature equalization (FIG. 1; ¶[0028]: module controller 115, 125, 135, 145 of each converter module in communication with master controller 105; controller sets switching circuit first-state and second-state durations based on the temperature value of its battery), such that the detected temperature differences and the detected charge differences each may influence the interconnection of the DC voltage sources in order to provide a coordination of charge balancing and temperature equalization (¶s [0052 – 0053]: switching circuit 111/121/131/141 first-state, second-state durations set based on temperature in first mode, SoC in second mode; charge balancing interrupted for temperature balancing and resumed in states of low power requirement).
SINGER does not expressly disclose a charge balancing unit for detecting and balancing charge differences between the DC voltage sources, wherein the charge balancing unit is communicatively connected to the at least one inverter unit in order to influence the interconnection of the DC voltage sources for the charge balancing.
GRAOVAC teaches a charge balancing unit for detecting and balancing charge differences between the DC voltage sources (FIG. 1; ¶s [0064, 0066]: control circuit 20 measures voltages V1', V2', Vn' to determine each stage's charging state and assigns duty-cycle parameter sets to the converter stages dependent on the detected charging states, for charge balancing), wherein the charge balancing unit is communicatively connected to the at least one inverter unit (FIG. 1: control circuit 20 electrically connected to the switch arrangement H of each converter unit via control signal lines S1...Sn) in order to influence the interconnection of the DC voltage sources for the charge balancing (¶[0064]: duty-cycle parameter sets assigned to converter stages to control their interconnection dependent on detected charging state).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine GRAOVAC's charging-state-dependent duty-cycle assignment to SINGER's individually-operated converter modules in order to enable detection and correction of charge imbalances among the battery-equipped converter modules during the modular multilevel converter's normal switching operation.
In re claims 11 – 14, SINGER discloses wherein a cascade of more than one of the inverter units is formed (¶[0075]: further converter modules connected in series, module first port of each connected to the module second port of a preceding module), wherein each of the inverter units can be connected to another of the DC voltage sources (FIG. 1: each converter module 110, 120, 130, 140 individually connected to its own battery 112, 122, 132, 142).
As to claim 12, SINGER further discloses wherein the inverter units each have an H-bridge circuit consisting of four configurable power-electronic switching elements (FIGS. 8 – 11: switching circuit comprising switches 211, 212, 213, 214 forming an H-bridge).
As to claim 13, SINGER further discloses a power supply system (MMC-based power supply system 100), wherein the DC voltage sources are connected to the input-side interface of the circuit assembly (FIG. 1: battery 112, 122, 132, 142 of each converter module electrically connected to that module's switching circuit).
As to claim 14, SINGER further discloses the power supply assembly further comprising an energy storage module comprising a battery (FIG. 1: battery 112, 122, 132, 142), wherein the DC voltage sources are formed as battery cells of the battery (¶[0020]: “the term battery is used herein for a general energy storage device like a battery cell or a plurality of battery cells”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGER et al. (US 2023/0353035 A1), in view of GRAOVAC et al. (US 2011/0198936 A1), and further in view of CHANDLER et al. (US 2007/0216368 A1) and LAI et al. (US 2014/0176078 A1).
In re claim 3, SINGER is silent to wherein during the charge balancing, the charge removal from a charge-depleted DC voltage source is reduced and at least partially balanced by at least one other of the DC voltage sources.
GRAOVAC teaches wherein during the charge balancing (¶s [0056, 0064]: charge balancing of charge storage units B1, B2, Bn via control circuit 20), the charge removal from a charge-depleted DC voltage source is reduced (¶s [0052, 0064]: duty-cycle, which indicates charge drawn from a stage's storage unit, is set lower the lower that stage's charging state is) and at least partially balanced by at least one other of the DC voltage sources (¶s [0030, 0064]: total output is the sum of all stages' duty-cycles – one stage's lowered duty-cycle is offset by the others).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine GRAOVAC's charging-state-dependent duty-cycle assignment to SINGER's individually-operated converter modules in order to reduce the charge removed from a depleted DC voltage source while the remaining DC voltage sources continue to supply the required output current.
GRAOVAC does not expressly teach the charge removal is reduced and at least partially balanced if a) the DC voltage of the charge-depleted DC voltage source has a voltage difference of more than 5 mV relative to the average DC voltage of all DC voltage sources or b) the state of charge of the charge-depleted DC voltage source has a state of charge difference of more than 1% relative to the average state of charge of all DC voltage sources.
CHANDLER teaches the DC voltage of the charge-depleted DC voltage source has a voltage difference of more than 5 mV relative to the average DC voltage of all DC voltage sources (¶[0010]: switch triggers current reduction when the voltage difference between a cell, i.e. a DC voltage source, and its companion cells exceeds a predetermined level, such as 50 millivolts).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine CHANDLER's voltage-difference-triggered current reduction to SINGER's individually-operated converter modules in order to prevent a charge-depleted DC voltage source from being driven below a safe minimum voltage while the other DC voltage sources continue supplying charge.
LAI teaches the state of charge of the most charge-depleted DC voltage source has a state of charge difference of more than 1% relative to the largest state of charge of all DC voltage sources, in particular if the state of charge difference amounts to more than 2% (¶[0026]: battery management module 20 determines whether the difference in state of charge between the cell with the highest charged voltage and the cell with the lowest discharged voltage is greater than a predetermined value; if the difference is greater than 2% of the maximum capacity, the battery apparatus is confirmed to need adjustment).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine LAI's state-of-charge-difference-triggered adjustment to SINGER's individually-operated converter modules, substituting a known average-based comparison for an extremal-cell comparison, in order to prevent a charge-depleted DC voltage source from being driven to a state of charge substantially below that of the other DC voltage sources.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGER et al. (US 2023/0353035 A1), in view of GRAOVAC et al. (US 2011/0198936 A1), and further in view of PENG et al. (US 5,642,275).
In re claim 4, SINGER is silent to wherein essentially or only active power components of the DC voltage sources are taken into account and balanced with one another during the charge balancing.
PENG teaches wherein only active power components of the DC voltage sources are taken into account (Col. 7, ll. 45 – 50: inverter controlled to allow real power to influence the DC capacitors to maintain the DC command voltage) and balanced with one another during the charge balancing (Col. 8, ll. 14 – 17, 29 – 34: each FBI unit DC capacitor voltage actively controlled by slightly shifting the switching pattern; each unit's phase shift offset generated by comparing that unit's own DC voltage level against the averaged DC voltage level of all units.).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine PENG's real-power-based DC capacitor voltage regulation to SINGER's individually-operated converter modules in order to compensate for switching device losses and capacitor losses that would otherwise cause each battery's stored charge to drift from the desired command voltage over time.
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGER et al. (US 2023/0353035 A1), in view of GRAOVAC et al. (US 2011/0198936 A1), and further in view of YOSHIDA (US 2014/0370940 A1).
In re claims 7 – 8, SINGER is silent to the charge removal from an overheated DC voltage source is reduced and at least partially balanced by at least one other of the DC voltage sources if the temperature difference between the temperature of the overheated DC voltage source and the average temperature of all DC voltage sources exceeds a defined temperature threshold value during the temperature equalization; or wherein the temperature threshold used is 1° C., 2° C., 5° C., 10° C., 15° C. or 20° C.
YOSHIDA teaches the charge removal from an overheated DC voltage source is reduced (FIG. 3; Claim 12: load control unit reduces a current in the discharge when the first signal is received from the battery control unit.) and at least partially balanced by at least one other of the DC voltage sources (Claims 1, 12: highest-temperature-unit-specific current reduction mechanism) if the temperature difference between the highest temperature unit and the lowest temperature unit of all DC voltage sources exceeds a defined temperature threshold value (Claim 31: temperature difference between the highest temperature unit and the lowest temperature unit equal to or greater than a reference value constitutes the first condition triggering the signal).
As to claim 8, YOSHIDA teaches wherein the temperature difference threshold is taken into account to influence the charge removal reduction (FIG. 5b: reference value T1 of the temperature difference set as a function of absolute temperature, i.e., a variable reference value rather than a fixed constant).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine YOSHIDA's temperature-difference-triggered current reduction to SINGER's individually-operated converter modules, substituting a known average-based comparison for a highest-lowest-unit comparison, in order to prevent an overheated DC voltage source from experiencing accelerated degradation relative to the other DC voltage sources.
It would have been further obvious for a PHOSITA to optimize the temperature threshold used to trigger the charge removal reduction to a specific value selected from 1°C, 2°C, 5°C, 10°C, 15°C, or 20°C, as a matter of routine optimization, in order to balance sensitivity to thermal imbalance against unnecessary interruption of normal charging or discharging operation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGER et al. (US 2023/0353035 A1), in view of GRAOVAC et al. (US 2011/0198936 A1), and further in view of ASHTIANI (US 2006/0290325 A1).
In re claim 9, SINGER is silent to wherein essentially or only reactive power components of the DC voltage sources are taken into account and balanced among one another during the temperature equalization.
ASHTIANI teaches wherein only reactive power components of the DC voltage sources are taken into account and balanced among one another during the temperature equalization (¶[0017]: controller generates a heating-mode AC current having only a reactive AC current component and zero or substantially zero DC current portion).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine ASHTIANI's reactive-only heating current to SINGER's individually-operated converter modules in order to selectively warm an individual DC voltage source without disturbing the charge balance being maintained among the DC voltage sources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 - 17:00.
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 (571) 272-2312. 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.
/D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights