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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued (a) Beaston does not disclose the recited claim structure; (b) Beaston does not disclose a plurality of BCS devices; (c) Thomas does not rectify Beaston’s deficiencies; and (d) Beaston does not disclose energy-management operations of adjusting a relative charging and discharging rates based on estimated energy levels. For all of these arguments, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument (a), examiner points applicant to marked up Figure 9 below, which demonstrates that when a switch in parallel with the batteries are turned on, an effective direct connection between each battery [both within each BCS and even between each BCS] is electrically connected (with the resistance of a resistor being distinct from that of e.g. a battery and analogous to that of the wiring). It is further well known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application that when this resistor is connected in parallel as shown, the charging current rate and discharging current rate of the battery is impacted. The switching on of these switches activates a different rate, and the switching off of these switches deactivates the changed rate. If the applicant wants a more narrowly defined structure, e.g. like what is shown in Fig. 4, then they should claim that the activation ensures current flows to/through the battery, and that deactivation bypasses the battery to ensure no current flows to/through the battery.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding argument (b), as explained for the rejection, there are a plurality of BCS units. Fig. 9 above even shows the plurality, in an analogous situation to applicant’s Fig. 4.
Regarding argument (c), as explained in the rejection, Thomas was not relied upon to teach the features the applicant has argued about.
Regarding argument (d), the applicant seems to say Beaston fails to teach the adjusting of the charging and discharging rate, but then admits Beaston teaches it. Fig. 32 clearly shows that the energy levels [represented here by the voltage level] determines how to apply charging/discharging rates. The short-circuiting via the resistor definitively is known to impact both the rate of charging and discharging of the battery. The opening of the short-circuit resistor switches also impacts the rate. Applicant further admitted that Beaston describes other ways of energy related values being determined (page 4). The act of balancing batteries during charging/discharging batteries impacts any charging and discharging rates. As noted above, applicant can refine their language to overcome this reasonable interpretation of their claims.
For the reasons above, the applicant’s arguments have been respectfully refuted.
The drawing objections are withdrawn in part. Fig. 1B is still required to have its features more clearly labeled. The claim and specification objections, and 112[a&b] rejections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
Drawings
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 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]).
Applicant has argued (a) Beaston does not disclose the recited claim structure; (b) Beaston does not disclose a plurality of BCS devices; (c) Thomas does not rectify Beaston’s deficiencies; and (d) Beaston does not disclose energy-management operations of adjusting a relative charging and discharging rates based on estimated energy levels. For all of these arguments, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument (a), examiner points applicant to marked up Figure 9 below, which demonstrates that when a switch in parallel with the batteries are turned on, an effective direct connection between each battery [both within each BCS and even between each BCS] is electrically connected (with the resistance of a resistor being distinct from that of e.g. a battery and analogous to that of the wiring). It is further well known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application that when this resistor is connected in parallel as shown, the charging current rate and discharging current rate of the battery is impacted. The switching on of these switches activates a different rate, and the switching off of these switches deactivates the changed rate. If the applicant wants a more narrowly defined structure, e.g. like what is shown in Fig. 4, then they should claim that the activation ensures current flows to/through the battery, and that deactivation bypasses the battery to ensure no current flows to/through the battery.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding argument (b), as explained for the rejection, there are a plurality of BCS units. Fig. 9 above even shows the plurality, in an analogous situation to applicant’s Fig. 4.
Regarding argument (c), as explained in the rejection, Thomas was not relied upon to teach the features the applicant has argued about.
Regarding argument (d), the applicant seems to say Beaston fails to teach the adjusting of the charging and discharging rate, but then admits Beaston teaches it. Fig. 32 clearly shows that the energy levels [represented here by the voltage level] determines how to apply charging/discharging rates. The short-circuiting via the resistor definitively is known to impact both the rate of charging and discharging of the battery. The opening of the short-circuit resistor switches also impacts the rate. Applicant further admitted that Beaston describes other ways of energy related values being determined (page 4). The act of balancing batteries during charging/discharging batteries impacts any charging and discharging rates. As noted above, applicant can refine their language to overcome this reasonable interpretation of their claims.
For the reasons above, the applicant’s arguments have been respectfully refuted.
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, 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, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 27 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:
The following references deal with cost functions having relation to the claimed features:
US-20190036356-A1 OR US-20240421623-A1 OR US-20190265308-A1
US-10312699-B2 OR US-11193984-B2
Of those, US-20190265308-A1 AND US-11193984-B2 (both hereinafter Fink et al; reference will be made to PGPN for now): see esp. ¶[68] which has a similar equation for cost function, where aging corresponds to SOH, while SOC & T are explicitly used.
However, the same equation for the cost function of charging/discharging claimed by the applicant was not explicitly described by the discovered prior art.
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 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