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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63183980, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The claimed subject matter was not found to be supported by provisional application 63183980; however, it was found to be substantially supported by provisional application 63262017. Therefore, the effectively priority date of the claims will be considered 10/01/2021 instead of 05/04/2021.
It is further noted that the equation for Claim 27 as currently provided is given a priority date of 12/20/23 as it does not match the equation filed in the provisional application above. See specification and claim objections below for more information.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner would like to note the latest Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submittals are extremely long. The Examiner has considered all of the references submitted as part of the Information Disclosure Statements, but has most of the references to not be particularly relevant to the application. If Applicant is aware of pertinent material in the references, he should so state in a response to this Office action. Applicant is reminded of section 2004, paragraph 13, of the MPEP:
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The IDS_s filed 4/17/24 include 90 pages including:
USPat documents:
283 in the 53 page document
290 in the 33 page document
104 in the 14 page document
USPGPub documents:
202 in the 53 page document
None in the other two documents
Foreign References:
14 in the 53 page document
37 in the 33 page document
6 in the 14 page document
Non-Patent Literature (NPL)
49 in the 53 page document
13 NPL documents seemingly solely describing motors
3 NPL documents which describe battery use (related to application)
5 Canadian Office Action documents
13 WIPO/PCT Office Actions
1 Chinese Office Action
3 European Office Actions
None in the other two documents
Many of these documents seem to relate more to motor/generator design rather than the claimed battery features. Some examples of very unrelated art include panel designs for televisions, check hook, visual inspection of steam engine, and rotor blade design.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The equation for discharging on page 29 does not match the equation for Claim 27. Emend to provide clear support.
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 equations of Claims 26 and 27 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.
The drawings are objected to because the elements of Fig. 1B are unclear [add text or symbols to make the figure’s elements clear on their own]. 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 Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The equation in claim 27 does not match the equation on page 29 of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 26 and 27 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 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.
In Claims 26 and 27, applicant claims:
26. The energy storage system of claim 25, wherein the cost function corresponding to charging current is computed according to:
f i =μ×SoC i ×SoH i(1−μ)×t i,
wherein:
fi is the cost function of cell i;
ti is the temperature of cell I; and
μ is a coefficient between 0 and 1.
27. The energy storage system of claim 25, wherein the cost function corresponding to discharging current is computed according to:
f i =μ×SoC i ×SoH i+(1−μ)×t i,
wherein:
fi is the cost function of cell i;
ti is the temperature of cell I; and
μ is a coefficient between 0 and 1.
The issue with these two claims is the formula they share, as the units do not appear to balance out to make sense. u has not been provided with a unit. SOC and SOH are generally understood to be percentage values, i.e. between 0 and 1 [100%=1, 0%=0]. Temperature, however, has a unit of Kelvin, Celsius, or Fahrenheit. Therefore, the two terms added together do not make sense, as the units would not match. As the units do not match, the applicant has not provided enough written description for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.
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 26 and 27 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.
As noted above for the 112(a) rejections, the formula/equation of Claims 26 and 27 add terms with incompatible units. Therefore, it is unclear what the term is meant to mean and how the equation is meant to be used. For purposes of examination, if the limitations of claim 25 are addressed, then the limitations of Claims 26 and 27 are addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24, 28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 38-41, 43, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beaston et al (USPGPN 20180123357; hereinafter Beast).
Independent Claim 24, Beast discloses an energy storage system (Figs. [1A-20, 26A-27A, 28-31B, 38, 41, 44, 45, 47-61D, esp. 6A, 9-10C, 20, 27A], ¶[90], abstract), comprising:
a set of battery control systems (BCS's), each BCS (see esp. Figs. [6A, 9-10C], 302a-302n appear to correspond to these units) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (412a-412n) arranged as a plurality of controllable units that are electrically connectable in circuit via switching circuitry (balancing units 420, ¶’s [117-120, 127-132, 157, 162]), wherein each controllable unit includes at least one of the battery cells of the plurality (Figs. [6A, 9-10C]);
the switching circuitry coupled to the plurality of battery cells, and arranged to facilitate individualized control of each of the controllable units, wherein the individualized control includes selective activation/deactivation of each controllable unit within an aggregation of battery cells through operation of the switching circuitry (¶’s [117-120, 127-132, 157, 162]); and
sensing circuitry arranged at each controllable unit to measure conditions of at least one battery cell of that controllable unit (see esp. Figs. [5, 8A, 9-10C], ¶’s [121-124, 140, 142, 146]);
a system controller (702 controlling each 414a-n) operatively coupled to the switching circuitry and to the sensing circuitry, the system controller) operative to:
estimate an energy storage level of each BCS of the set (¶’s [157-160, 162, 165, 206, 208, 210, 211, 213, 215-216, esp. 159, 160, 162, 165, 206, 208]);
and adjust a relative rate of charging and a relative rate of discharging of battery cells among the set of BCS's based on the estimated energy levels (¶’s [98, 138, 167, 200, 222, 224, esp. 138, 222, 224]).
Independent Claim 33, Beast discloses a method (Figs. [21-25, 27B, 32-37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, esp. 32]) for operating an energy storage system (Figs. [1A-20, 26A-27A, 28-31B, 38, 41, 44, 45, 47-61D, esp. 6A, 9-10C, 20, 27A]), the method (¶[90], abstract) comprising:
providing a set of battery control systems (BCS's) (see esp. Figs. [6A, 9-10C], 302a-302n appear to correspond to these units), each BCS having a plurality of battery cells (412a-412n) arranged as a plurality of controllable units (packs in 9-10C; controllable via switches in balancing units 420, ¶’s [117-120, 127-132, 157, 162]), wherein each controllable unit includes at least one of the battery cells of the plurality (Figs. [6A, 9-10C]);
performing individualized control of each of the controllable units (¶’s [117-120, 127-132, 157, 162]), wherein the individualized control includes selective activation/deactivation of each controllable unit within an aggregation of battery cells (¶’s [117-120, 127-132, 157, 162]);
measuring conditions of at least one battery cell of each controllable unit (see esp. Figs. [5, 8A, 9-10C], ¶’s [121-124, 140, 142, 146]);
estimating an energy storage level of each BCS of the set (¶’s [157-160, 162, 165, 206, 208, 210, 211, 213, 215-216, esp. 159, 160, 162, 165, 206, 208]);
and adjusting a relative rate of charging and a relative rate of discharging of battery cells among the set of BCS's based on the estimated energy levels (¶’s [98, 138, 167, 200, 222, 224, esp. 138, 222, 224]).
Independent Claim 40, Beast discloses at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium (memory 518 in Fig. 5, 820/810 in Figs. [8A, 9-10C] comprising instructions (Figs. [21-25, 27B, 32-37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, esp. 32], ¶[90], abstract) that, when executed by a controller (702) of an energy storage system (Figs. [1A-20, 26A-27A, 28-31B, 38, 41, 44, 45, 47-61D, esp. 6A, 9-10C, 20, 27A]) which includes a set of battery control systems (BCS's) (see esp. Figs. [6A, 9-10C], 302a-302n appear to correspond to these units), each BCS having a plurality of battery cells arranged as a plurality of controllable units (412a-412n), with each controllable unit (packs in 9-10C; controllable via switches in balancing units 420, ¶’s [117-120, 127-132, 157, 162]) including at least one of the battery cells of the plurality, causes the energy storage system to:
perform individualized control of each of the controllable units (¶’s [117-120, 127-132, 157, 162]), wherein the individualized control includes selective activation/deactivation of each controllable unit within an aggregation of battery cells (¶’s [117-120, 127-132, 157, 162]);
measure conditions of at least one battery cell of each controllable unit (see esp. Figs. [5, 8A, 9-10C], ¶’s [121-124, 140, 142, 146]);
estimate an energy storage level of each BCS of the set (¶’s [157-160, 162, 165, 206, 208, 210, 211, 213, 215-216, esp. 159, 160, 162, 165, 206, 208]);
and adjust a relative rate of charging and a relative rate of discharging of battery cells among the set of BCS's based on the estimated energy levels (¶’s [98, 138, 167, 200, 222, 224, esp. 138, 222, 224]).
Dependent Claims 28, 35, and 41, Beast discloses the system controller is operative to adjust the relative rate of charging & a relative rate of discharging such that a first BCS of the set that has a relatively lower energy storage level is controlled to charge & discharge at relatively lower rates, and that a second BCS of the set that has a relatively higher energy storage level is controlled to charge & discharge at relatively higher rates (¶’s [219-221, 226-228, 285-289])
Dependent Claims 29, 36, and 43, Beast discloses the system controller is operative to adjust the relative rate of charging and a relative rate of discharging such that a first BCS of the set that has a relatively lower energy storage level is controlled to discharge at a relatively lower rate and to charge at a relatively higher rate, and that a second BCS of the set that has a relatively higher energy storage level is controlled to discharge at a relatively higher rate (¶’s [219-221, 226-228, 285-289]).
Dependent Claims 31, 38, and 45, Beast discloses the system controller is operative to cause the set of BCS's to operate either in a charging regime or in a discharging regime, and further to cause at least one BCS of the set to occasionally operate in a different regime than the other BCSs of the set concurrently with operation of those other BCSs of the set (¶’s [219-221])
Dependent Claims 32, 39, and 46, Beast discloses estimating a state of each BCS based on the measured conditions of the at least one battery cell in each controllable unit of that BCS, wherein the estimated state of each BCS is indicative of a performance capability of that BCS (¶’s [159, 160, 162, 165, 206, 208], where an energy level or SOC level of a battery provides the capability to perform charging or discharging operations for each cell and/or pack)
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 30, 37, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beaston et al (USPGPN 20180123357; hereinafter Beast) in view of Thomas et al (USPGPN 20210066699)
Dependent Claims 30, 37, and 44, Beast discloses the system controller is operative to estimate the energy storage level of each BCS being based on an aggregation of a combination of an estimated state of charge (SoC) value, an estimated state of health (SoH) value, and a nominal capacity of each controllable unit within that BCS, wherein the SoC value is indicative of an extent to which the at least one cell of the controllable unit is charged relative to its capacity, and wherein the SoH value is indicative of an extent of degradation of the at least one cell of the controllable unit (¶’s [160, 210-213], Figs. [21-23B], with 210 relating the energy level with the health data of the battery, thus it would be based on the inherent SOH of a battery).
Or in the alternative, Beast fails to explicitly describe SOH.
Thomas teaches state of health (SOH) in ¶’s [56-58, esp. 58]. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that state of health is an easy to understand way of displaying the health of a battery, since it is generally represented as a percentage between 0-100%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Beast with Thomas to provide improved understanding.
Claims 25-27, 34, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston et al (USPGPN 20180123357; hereinafter Beast) in view of Thomas et al (USPGPN 20210066699), as evidenced by Thomas et al (USPGPN 20200373630; hereinafter Thom)
Dependent Claims 25, 34, and 42 (in addition to Claims 26 and 27, see 112[b] interpretation]), Beast is silent to the system controller is operative to determine a sort order for the battery cells of each BCS, wherein an ON time of each battery cell is to be based on the sort order; wherein the sort order is determined according to a cost function corresponding to a current of charging or discharging of each of the battery cells based on an estimated state of charge (SoC) value, an estimated state of health (SoH) value, and a temperature of that cell.
Thomas teaches the system controller (BMS, see Figs. [1-4, 6]) is operative to determine a sort order for the battery cells (22) of each BCS, wherein an ON time of each battery cell is to be based on the sort order (¶’s [13-17, 77, 78, 81-87, esp. 83-87]);
wherein the sort order is determined according to a cost function corresponding to a current of charging or discharging of each of the battery cells based on an estimated state of charge (SoC) value, an estimated state of health (SoH) value, and a temperature of that cell (¶’s [56-58] describes the prioritization to choose which to turn on first [i.e. on-time] is based on the SOC, SOH, and temperature). Thom provides evidence that having further points of information to determine priority levels is advantageous (¶[73]; where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that more data points can improve the reliability and accuracy of the information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Beast with Thomas to provide improved accuracy and reliability.
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