DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 12/27/2023 claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
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 “battery slot providing a space into which at least one auxiliary battery is inserted” and the “separation request signal” 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 remove “computer-implemented” to avoid a 35 USC § 101 rejection. For examination purposes below this limitation will be considered as removed, however, appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 11-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (USPGPN 20180009400) and further in view of Penilla et al. (USPGPN 20180015835; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure (IDS) as USPN 9925882).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 11, Lee teaches a battery system of a vehicle (Figs. 1-7; ¶[21]).
Lee teaches a main battery configured to be selectively connected to a load of the vehicle using a first switch (Figs. 1-7; the main battery 111 is selectively connected using a first switch 151).
Lee teaches an auxiliary battery is connected to the load of the vehicle using a second switch (Figs. 1-7; the auxiliary battery 121 is selectively connected using a second switch 152).
Lee teaches a controller configured to turn off the first switch and turn on the second switch (Figs. 1-7; a power controller 160 is configured to turn off the first switch 151 and turn on the second switch 152).
However, Lee fails to explicitly teach a battery slot providing a space into which at least one auxiliary battery is inserted; and in response to the at least one auxiliary battery being inserted into a corresponding battery slot.
Note, applicant has broadly claimed a “battery slot” and “a space into which at least one auxiliary battery is inserted”, one of ordinary skill can possibly interpret that Lee’s apparatus (100) and power supply (120) could constitute a slot (area) and space for the aux battery since such a battery is likely added after the body is formed and not integral with the EV and would be designed such as to be fixed and not move around. However, for evidentiary reasons, the examiner is supplying a teaching for this claimed limitation.
Penilla teaches a battery slot providing a space into which at least one auxiliary battery is inserted (Abstract; Fig. 3; an auxiliary battery carrier 16 providing a space into which volt bars 20 are inserted).
Penilla teaches the system responding to the at least one auxiliary battery being inserted into a corresponding battery slot (Abstract; “The computer is interfaced with the connection of the receptacle slot to obtain a level of charge of the battery present in the receptacle slot”).
Switching off the main battery isolates the main battery from the system thus conserving its life by placing the work burden on an insertable auxiliary battery which may be replaced at a higher convenience than the main battery. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to adapt Penilla’s auxiliary battery carrier system to Lee’s switching circuit in order to switch over from the main battery to the auxiliary battery when the auxiliary battery is inserted into the system. The advantage of this being the user is provided with more flexibility of selecting auxiliary batteries to provide sufficient power (see Penilla’s abstract).
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 12, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Lee teaches wherein a first end of the first switch is connected to the main battery (Figs. 1-7; a first end of the first switch 151 is connected to the main battery 111).
Lee teaches wherein a second end of the first switch is connected to a first end of the second switch and the load of the vehicle (Figs. 1-7; a second end of the first switch 151 is connected to a first end of the second switch 152 and the load 130 of the vehicle).
Lee teaches wherein a second end of the second switch is connected to a first end of the battery slot (Figs. 1-7; a second end of the second switch 152 is connected to a first end of the auxiliary battery 121 (i.e., Penilla’s auxiliary battery carrier 16)).
Lee teaches wherein a second end of the battery slot is connected to the load of the vehicle and the main battery using a third switch (Figs. 1-7; a second end of the auxiliary battery 16 is connected to the loads 130/140 of the vehicle and the main battery 111 via the ground path).
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 13, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 2 and 12, respectively.
Further, Lee teaches wherein a resistance component is connected between the main battery and the component (It is well-known that the conduction path between two components has resistance and that resistive value may be modified by changing the dimensions and material properties of the conduction path).
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 14, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 2 and 12, respectively.
Lee teaches wherein the controller is further configured to turn on the first switch in response that a required power level of the load of the vehicle is higher than a maximum power level of the auxiliary battery (Fig. 2).
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 17, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 4 and 14, respectively. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 7 and 17.
Penilla teaches wherein in response that a driving distance of the vehicle according to a state of charge of the at least one auxiliary battery is shorter than a distance to a destination of the vehicle, the controller is further configured to determine that the required power level of the load of the vehicle is higher than the maximum power level of the auxiliary battery (¶[15]; ¶[215]; one of ordinary skill understands the controller determines if the volt bars 20 have sufficient SOC to complete the trip based on the required power level of the load considering the distance to a destination of the vehicle).
Energy management is essential and ensuring system batteries have enough charge before a trip is done so any battery without enough charge is flagged for replacement. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Penilla’s battery distance power level planning to Lee’s system. The advantage of this being the user is provided with more flexibility of selecting auxiliary batteries with adequate power levels (see Penilla’s abstract).
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Penilla, and further in view of Kim et al. (USPGPN 20180281616).
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 15, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 4 and 14, respectively. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 5 and 15.
Kim teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform battery voltage balancing by controlling the switches (Figs. 1-3; ¶[09]).
Performing battery balancing before connecting them in parallel prevents damaging inrush currents. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Kim’s battery balancing method to Lee’s switching circuit so that battery balancing is performed with the second switch and the third switch before turning on the first switch. The advantage of this being the vehicle battery system includes a controller that monitors a state of charge of the first and second battery modules, and thus service life of the battery is improved (see ¶[14] of Kim).
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 16, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 5 and 15, respectively. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 6 and 16.
Kim teaches wherein the controller is further configured to control the at least one of the second switch and the third switch so that a sum of a voltage of the at least one of the second switch and the third switch and a voltage of the at least one auxiliary battery corresponds to a voltage of the main battery (Figs. 1-3; ¶[09]; it is well-understood that balancing involves equalizing the voltages of the batteries).
Performing battery balancing before connecting them in parallel prevents damaging inrush currents. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Kim’s battery balancing method to Lee’s switching circuit so that battery balancing is performed with the second switch and the third switch before turning on the first switch. The advantage of this being the vehicle battery system includes a controller that monitors a state of charge of the first and second battery modules, and thus service life of the battery is improved (see ¶[14] of Kim).
Claims 8-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Penilla, and further in view of Alturi et al. (USPGPN 20210129687).
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 8.
Alturi teaches further including a converter configured to transfer energy stored in the at least one auxiliary battery to the main battery based on the control of the controller (Figs. 1-2; ¶[37]; the DC-DC converter 88 transfers energy stored in the flex range battery 90 to the primary energy storage device 40 based on the control of the controller 89).
A DC-DC converter is used to supply power from a lower voltage battery to a higher voltage battery in order to provide the appropriate voltage level to allow current to flow. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Alturi’s DC-DC converter to Lee’s system. The advantage of this being the system is operated to bring the deployable flex range batteries online while minimizing inrush currents (see ¶[20] of Alturi).
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 18, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 8 and 12, respectively. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9.
Alturi teaches wherein the controller is further configured to compare a state of charge of the at least one auxiliary battery and a state of charge of the main battery in response to receiving a separation request signal for the at least one auxiliary battery and control the converter according to a result of the comparison (¶[09]; ¶[12]; the SOC of the flex batteries 90 and primary battery 40 are continuously monitored and compared to determine whether to disconnect a flex battery 90 from the system and consequentially operate the converter 88 accordingly).
Comparing the state of charge between a vehicle’s main battery and auxiliary battery ensures the electrical system functions reliably. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Alturi’s SOC comparison of the main battery with the auxiliary batteries to Lee’s system. The advantage of this being the system is operated to bring the deployable flex range batteries online while minimizing inrush currents (see ¶[20] of Alturi).
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 19, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 9 and 18, respectively. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 10.
Alturi teaches wherein in response that an amount of the charge of the at least one auxiliary battery is greater than an amount of the charge of the main battery, the controller is configured to transfer the energy of the at least one auxiliary battery to the main battery using the converter (¶[12]).
Connecting an auxiliary battery supplements the main battery to provide the necessary power to keep electrical systems running and to prevent the main battery from dropping to a damaging voltage level. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Alturi’s SOC comparison of the main battery with the auxiliary batteries to Lee’s system. The advantage of this being the system is operated to bring the deployable flex range batteries online while minimizing inrush currents (see ¶[20] of Alturi).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art disclosed by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been considered by the examiner and relied upon for citation purposes. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yeo et al. (USPGPN 20230024016) describes a vehicle charging system that can charge the main battery from either wall power or from one or more swappable batteries installed in the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm 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, 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights